On Legal Interpretation and Second-order Proof Rules

This paper puts forward three critiques of pardo’s second-order proof rules thesis. The first criticism states that these rules are not suitable to guide the interpretation of standards of proof rules because they confuse matters of legal interpretation with matters of epistemology. The second criticism states that second-order proof rules are affected by the same indeterminacy problems they are designed to resolve, thereby rendering them unsuitable for the task they are purposely designed for. The third criticism renders pardo’s proposal redundant. a reconceptualization of second-order proof rules is offered

De Finetti on uncertainty

The well-known Knightian distinction between quantifiable risk and unquantifiable uncertainty is at odds with the dominant subjectivist conception of probability associated with de Finetti, Ramsey and Savage. Risk and uncertainty are rendered indistinguishable on the subjectivist approach insofar as an individual’s subjective estimate of the probability of any event can be elicited from the odds at which she would be prepared to bet for or against that event. The risk/uncertainty distinction has however never quite gone away and is currently under renewed theoretical scrutiny. The purpose of this article is to show that de Finetti’s understanding of the distinction is more nuanced than is usually admitted. Relying on usually overlooked excerpts of de Finetti’s works commenting on Keynes, Knight and interval valued probabilities, we argue that de Finetti suggested a relevant theoretical case for uncertainty to hold even when individuals are endowed with subjective probabilities. Indeed, de Finetti admitted that the distinction between risk and uncertainty is relevant when different individuals sensibly disagree about the probability of the occurrence of an event. We conclude that the received interpretation of de Finetti’s understanding of subjective probability needs to be qualified on this front

Probability in ethics

The article is a plea for ethicists to regard probability as one of their most important concerns. It outlines a series of topics of central importance in ethical theory in which probability is implicated, often in a surprisingly deep way, and lists a number of open problems. Topics covered include: interpretations of probability in ethical contexts; the evaluative and normative significance of risk or uncertainty; uses and abuses of expected utility theory; veils of ignorance; Harsanyi’s aggregation theorem; population size problems; equality; fairness; giving priority to the worse off; continuity; incommensurability; nonexpected utility theory; evaluative measurement; aggregation; causal and evidential decision theory; act consequentialism; rule consequentialism; and deontology

Probability and nonclassical logic

Classical tautologies have probability. Classical contradictions have probability. These familiar features reflect a connection between standard probability theory and classical logic. In contexts in which classical logic is questioned—to deal with the paradoxes of self-reference, or vague propositions, for the purposes of scientific theory or metaphysical anti-realism—we must equally question standard probability theory. Section 1 covers the intended interpretation of ‘nonclassical logic’ and ‘probability’. Section 2 reviews the connection between classical logic and classical probability. Section 3 briefly reviews salient aspects of nonclassical logic, laying out a couple of simple examples to fix ideas. Section 4 explores modifications of probability theory. The variations laid down will be motivated initially by formal analogies to the classical setting. In section 5, however, we look at two foundational justifications for the presentations of ‘nonclassical probabilities’ that are arrived at. Sections 6-7 describe extensions of the nonclassical framework: to conditionalization and decision theory in particular. Section 8 will consider some alternative approaches, and section 9 evaluates progress

Staying Faithful to the Standards of Proof

Academics have never quite understood the standards of proof or, indeed, much about the theory of proof Their formulations beget probabilistic musings, which beget all sorts of paradoxes, which in turn beget radical reconceptions and proposals for reform. The theoretical radicals argue that the law needs some basic reconception such as recognizing the aim of legal proof as not at all a search for truth but rather the production of an acceptable result, or that the law needs some shattering reform such as greatly heightening the civil standard of proof on each part of the case to ensure a more-likely than- not overall result. This Article refutes all those baroque rereadings. It shows that the standards of proof properly understood on the law\u27s own terms without a probabilistic overlay, work just fine. The law tells factfinders to compare their degree of belief in the alleged fact to their degree of contradictory disbelief. Obeying that instruction resolves mathematically the paradoxes that traditional probability theory creates for itself Most surprising, the burden of proof by which the proponent must prove all the elements and the opponent need disprove only one, does not produce an asymmetry between the parties. The law\u27s standards of proof need no drastic reconception or reform, because the law knew what it was doing all along. It deals with factual beliefs in a world that will remain uncertain, not with the odds of the facts becoming certain. And the well-established mathematics of beliefs are not the mathematics of odds

Creationism and evolution

In Tower of Babel, Robert Pennock wrote that “defenders of evolution would help their case immeasurably if they would reassure their audience that morality, purpose, and meaning are not lost by accepting the truth of evolution.” We first consider the thesis that the creationists’ movement exploits moral concerns to spread its ideas against the theory of evolution. We analyze their arguments and possible reasons why they are easily accepted. Creationists usually employ two contradictive strategies to expose the purported moral degradation that comes with accepting the theory of evolution. On the one hand they claim that evolutionary theory is immoral. On the other hand creationists think of evolutionary theory as amoral. Both objections come naturally in a monotheistic view. But we can find similar conclusions about the supposed moral aspects of evolution in non-religiously inspired discussions. Meanwhile, the creationism-evolution debate mainly focuses — understandably — on what constitutes good science. We consider the need for moral reassurance and analyze reassuring arguments from philosophers. Philosophers may stress that science does not prescribe and is therefore not immoral, but this reaction opens the door for the objection of amorality that evolution — as a naturalistic world view at least — supposedly endorses. We consider that the topic of morality and its relation to the acceptance of evolution may need more empirical research