Abstract
In this chapter, we offer a Bayesian model for evaluating expert testimony in the court room. Statements from a putative expert are difficult for a legal decision maker to assess, as the legal decision maker – who lacks expert knowledge on the subject issue – must distinguish between experts that are highly reliable and experts that are less reliable. A methodology for the assessment of the expert testimony has been suggested previously, in the works of Walton and Goldman, and we develop this methodology further, using a Bayesian approach to reliability assessment. The reliability of an expert can be questioned on different grounds (lack of competence, bias and lack of motivation), and we clarify different effects that these grounds can have on the expert’s reliability.
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
- 1.
A much discussed problem is how to calculate the probability that a statement is true when there is no evidence whatsoever. We will not try to solve this problem here but submit that, in a legal context, legal norms can be useful to solve this problem. For example, in a criminal case, the presumption of innocence requires us to set the prior probability close to zero.
References
Bachman, James. 1995. Appeal to authority. In Fallacies – Classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Barnes, Mark, and Patrik S. Florenico. 2002. Financial conflicts of interest in human subjects research: The problem of institutional conflicts. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 20(3): 390–402.
Bender, Rolf, Armin Nack, and Wolf-Dieter Treuer. 2007. Tatsachenfeststellung vor Gericht, 3rd ed. München: Verlag C.H. Beck.
Brinton, Alan. 1995. The Ad Hominem. In Fallacies – Classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Coleman, Edwin. 1995. There is no fallacy of arguing from authority. Informal Logic 17(3): 365–384.
Copi, Irving, Carl Cohen, and Kenneth McMahon. 2010. Introduction to logic, 14th ed. Boston: Pearson.
Dahlman, Christian, David Reidhav, and Lena Wahlberg. 2011. Fallacies in Ad Hominem arguments. Cogency 3(2): 107–126.
Dwyer, Déirdre. 2008. Judicial assessment of expert evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldman, Alvin. 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63(1): 85–109.
Gooden, David M., and Douglas Walton. 2006. Argument from expert opinion as legal evidence: Critical questions and admissibility criteria of expert testimony in the American legal system. Ratio Juris 19(3): 261–286.
Govier, Trudy. 2010. A practical study of argument, 7th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Graham, Michael H. 1977. Impeaching the professional expert witness by showing financial interest. Indiana Law Review 53: 85–110.
Hahn, Ulrike, Adam J.L. Harris, and Adam Corner. 2009. Argument content and argument source: An exploration. Informal Logic 29(4): 337–367.
Hahn, Ulrike, Mike Oaksford, and Adam Harris. 2013. Testimony and argument: A Bayesian perspective. In Bayesian argumentation: The practical side of probability, ed. F. Zenker. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hand, Learned. 1901. Historical and practical considerations regarding expert testimony. Harvard Law Review 15(1): 40–58.
Hardwig, John. 1985. Epistemic dependence. The Journal of Philosophy 82: 335–349.
Hardwig, John. 1991. The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 88: 693–708.
Huber, Peter. 1993. Galileo’s revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
Josefsson, Dan. 2013. Mannen som slutade ljuga – Berättelsen om Sture Bergwall och kvinnan som skapade Thomas Quick. Stockholm: Lind & Co.
Korb, Kevin. 2003. Bayesian informal logic and fallacy. Informal Logic 23(2): 41–70.
Meester, Ronald, Mareike Collings, Richard Gill, and Michiel van Lambalgen. 2006. On the (ab)Use of statistics in the legal case against Nurse Lucia de B. Law, Probability and Risk 5(3–4): 251–254.
Råstam, Hannes. 2012. Fallet Thomas Quick – Att skapa en seriemördare. Stockholm: Ordfront.
Salmon, Wesley. 1963. Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Salmon, Merrilee. 2013. Introduction to logic and critical thinking, 6th ed. Boston: Cengage.
Schum, David A. 1975. The weighing of testimony in judicial proceedings from sources having reduced credibility. Human Factors 17(2): 172–182.
Solomon, Miriam. 1992. Scientific rationality and human reasoning. Philosophy of Science 59: 439–454.
Wahlberg, Lena. 2010. Legal questions and scientific answers: Ontological differences and epistemic gaps in the assessment of causal relations. Lund: Lund University Mediatryck.
Walton, Douglas. 1989. Rezoned use of expertise in argumentation. Argumentation 3: 139–159.
Walton, Douglas. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1998. Ad Hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Walton, Douglas. 2006. Examination dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 6: 3–26.
Yap, Audrey. 2013. Ad Hominem fallacies, bias and testimony. Argumentation 27(2): 97.
Zenker, Frank. 2011. Expert and bias: When is the interest-based objection to expert argumentation sound? Argumentation 25: 355–370.
Acknowledgments
Research financed by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) and Ragnar Söderbergs Stiftelse. Thanks to Thomas Bustamte, Roberta Colonna Dahlman, Ulrike Hahn, Farhan Sarwar and Frank Zenker.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dahlman, C., Wahlberg, L. (2015). Appeal to Expert Testimony – A Bayesian Approach. In: Bustamante, T., Dahlman, C. (eds) Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 112. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16148-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16148-8_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16147-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16148-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)