Abstract
Chapter 2 studies the problem of how to model evidential reasoning of the most common kind in criminal trials using the tools presented in Chap. 1. Chapter 2 analyzes two case studies of murder trials in which the evidential reasoning employed is based on inference to the best explanation and involves motive evidence. The chapter uses argument diagramming tools, argumentation schemes, and explanatory story-based scripts to model the evidential structure of the use of inference to the best explanation in both cases. Both cases are from textbooks used to teach students how to grasp the basics of pro-contra argumentation used in evidential reasoning in a criminal trial of a highly typical sort. The chapter offers the beginnings of a solution to the technical problem of combining argument and explanation in such cases, pointing the way forward to Chap. 3, where a method of evaluating explanations is built up.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
References
Bex, F.J. 2011. Arguments, stories and criminal evidence: A formal hybrid theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bex, F.J. 2013. Abductive argumentation with stories. Workshop on formal aspects of evidential inference (International Conference on AI and Law, 2013, Rome). http://www.florisbex.com/papers/BexStoriesValues.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2013 at this site.
Diels, H., and W. Kranz. 1952. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Goodwin, J. 2000. Wigmore’s chart method. Informal Logic 20(3): 223–243.
Josephson, J.R., and S.G. Josephson. 1994. Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leonard, D.P. 2001. Character and motive in evidence law. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 34(2): 439–536.
Pardo, M.S., and R.J. Allen. 2008. Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy 27(3): 223–268.
Pennington, N., and R. Hastie. 1993. The story model for juror decision making. In Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making, ed. R. Hastie, 192–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prakken, H. 2010. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation 1(2): 93–124.
Schank, R.C., and R.P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Thagard, P., and C. Shelley. 1997. Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence. In Logic and Scientific Methods, ed. M.-L. Dalla Chiara et al., 413–427. Dordrecht: Kluwer, http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/%7FAbductive.html
Wagenaar, W.A., P.J. van Koppen, and H.F.M. Crombag. 1993. Anchored narratives: The psychology of criminal evidence. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Walton, D. 1990a. Practical reasoning: Goal-driven, knowledge-based, action-guiding argumentation. Savage: Rowman & Littlefield.
Walton, D. 1990b. What is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of Philosophy 87(8): 399–419.
Walton, D. 2005. Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
Walton, D. 2010. Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic 30(2): 159–184.
Walton, D., and F. Macagno. 2005. Common knowledge in legal reasoning about evidence. International Commentary on Evidence 3(1): 1–42.
Walton, D., and B. Schafer. 2006. Arthur, George and the mystery of the missing motive: Towards a theory of evidentiary reasoning about motives. International Commentary on Evidence 4(2): 1–47.
Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., C.W. Tindale, and T.F. Gordon. 2014. Applying recent argumentation methods to some ancient examples of plausible reasoning. Argumentation 28(1): 85–119.
Wigmore, J.H. 1931. The principles of judicial proof. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Wigmore, J.H. 1935. A student’s textbook of the law of evidence. Chicago: The Foundation Press.
Wigmore, J.H. 1940. A treatise on the Anglo-American system of evidence in trial at common law, vol. 1, 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walton, D. (2016). Inference to the Best Explanation. In: Argument Evaluation and Evidence. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19626-8_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19625-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19626-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)