FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2000652746> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2000652746 endingPage "4" @default.
• W2000652746 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2000652746 abstract "By now it is an old story: legal scholarship in the English-speaking world about the law of evidence began to change in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This shift in the direction of Evidence scholarship came to be known as the ‘New Evidence Scholarship’—‘NES’, for short. A characteristic (but not universal) feature of much of NES—particularly in the early days—was a preference for formal mathematical argument about evidence and inference and about decisions based on uncertain evidence and inference. NES aroused controversy from the moment of its birth (or rebirth). Laurence Tribe almost succeeded in turning NES into an example of sudden infant death syndrome; his powerful 1971 attack on ‘trial by mathematics’ almost succeeded in killing off the baby.1 Other observers, while not necessarily rejecting the need for a shift in the direction of Evidence scholarship, followed the anti-mathematicist trail that Tribe had blazed. (But scholars such as Richard Lempert, David Kaye and David Schum saved the mathematicist branch of the new scholarship from premature oblivion.2) Many of the attacks on mathematical analysis of evidential inference were misdirected; many of them—probably the vast majority of them—rested on basic misunderstandings about the nature and possible uses of mathematics. (Some critics seemed to assume that numbers are only good for counting. Other observers seemed to assume that all mathematical expressions amount to recipes for solving problems.) But some of the attacks on mathematical argument about evidence and inference harboured, even if not always distinctly, intuitions that seem to have considerable substance. One such intuition is that it makes little sense to ask people such as jurors to use a method of analysis or argument—such as Bayesianism—that is beyond their ‘common’, or ‘ordinary’, understanding.3 Another important intuition is that the nuances and complexities of real-world evidence and inference are too great to be captured by any type of formal analysis. Both of these intuitions involve assumptions about the cognitive capacities of human beings and the human brain. One reason I am interested in visualization of evidence and inference is that I suspect and hope that visualization of evidence and inference can make the logic of formal analytical" @default.
• W2000652746 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2000652746 creator A5088066490 @default.
• W2000652746 date "2007-10-10" @default.
• W2000652746 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2000652746 title "Introduction: visualizing evidence and inference in legal settings" @default.
• W2000652746 doi "https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgm006" @default.
• W2000652746 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2000652746 type Work @default.
• W2000652746 sameAs 2000652746 @default.
• W2000652746 citedByCount "11" @default.
• W2000652746 countsByYear W20006527462013 @default.
• W2000652746 countsByYear W20006527462014 @default.
• W2000652746 countsByYear W20006527462018 @default.
• W2000652746 countsByYear W20006527462022 @default.
• W2000652746 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2000652746 hasAuthorship W2000652746A5088066490 @default.
• W2000652746 hasBestOaLocation W20006527461 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConcept C2776214188 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConceptScore W2000652746C111472728 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConceptScore W2000652746C138885662 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConceptScore W2000652746C154945302 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConceptScore W2000652746C2522767166 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConceptScore W2000652746C2776214188 @default.
• W2000652746 hasConceptScore W2000652746C41008148 @default.
• W2000652746 hasIssue "1-4" @default.
• W2000652746 hasLocation W20006527461 @default.
• W2000652746 hasOpenAccess W2000652746 @default.
• W2000652746 hasPrimaryLocation W20006527461 @default.
• W2000652746 hasRelatedWork W1964757 @default.
• W2000652746 hasRelatedWork W2030373402 @default.
• W2000652746 hasRelatedWork W2367950322 @default.
• W2000652746 hasRelatedWork W2382066548 @default.
• W2000652746 hasRelatedWork W2587442860 @default.
• W2000652746 hasRelatedWork W2911297108 @default.
• W2000652746 hasRelatedWork W3154247884 @default.
• W2000652746 hasRelatedWork W4289528260 @default.
• W2000652746 hasRelatedWork W4306760504 @default.
• W2000652746 hasRelatedWork W86463150 @default.
• W2000652746 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W2000652746 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2000652746 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2000652746 magId "2000652746" @default.
• W2000652746 workType "article" @default.