Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inductive, Abductive and Probabilistic Reasoning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation

Abstract

The chapter traces the co-evolution of probability theory and inductive reasoning in the sciences and the law, from the early beginnings in the eighteenth century to problems in contemporary discussions on how to interpret and quantify DNA evidence. In addition to being a useful technique for what? ‘The adminstration of criminal justice’? I have never thought of philosophy and epistemology as being ‘techniques’, the philosophical and epistemological context also casts light on the “quest for certainty” in legal reasoning and in legal reasoning and ultimately our ideal of justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aitken, C.G.G. 1999. Sampling—How big a sample. Journal of Forensic Sciences 44: 750–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aitken, C.G.G., and F. Taroni. 2004. Statistics and the evaluation of evidence for forensic scientists. Chichester: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aliseda, A. 2004. Logics in scientific discovery. Foundations of Science 9: 339–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aliseda, A. 2006. Abductive reasoning: logical investigations into discovery and explanation. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amaya, A. 2007. Formal models of coherence and legal epistemology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (4): 429–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, K.D. 1992. Case-based reasoning and its implications for legal expert systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (2-3): 113–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, F. 1887. Novum Organum, 1st ed, vol. 1620, ed. T. Fowler. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, S.E. 1903. The study of elementary law, the proper beginning of a legal education. Yale Law Journal 13: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, G.A. (1958). Thomas Bayes—a biographical note (together with a reprinting of Bayes 1764) Biometrika, 45: 293–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayes, T. 1764. An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London for 1763 53: 370–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bex, F. 2013. Abductive argumentation with stories. In ICAIL-2013 workshop on formal aspects of evidential inference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C. 1996. Abduction to plausible causes: An event-based model of belief update. Artificial Intelligence 83: 143–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, D. 2012. The ways of the wise: Hume’s rules of causal reasoning. Hume Studies 38: 157–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewka, G. 1991. Nonmonotonic reasoning: Logical foundations of commonsense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewka, G., J. Dix, and K. Konolige. 1997. Nonmonotonic reasoning - An overview. Stanford University Press: CSLI publications, Redwood City, Calif.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, J.W. 1984. Institutional writings in Scotland reconsidered. The Journal of Legal History 4 (3): 76–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R. 1952. The continuum of inductive methods. Chicago, III: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, G.F., and E. Herskovits. 1992. A Bayesian method for the induction of probabilistic networks from data. Machine Learning 9 (4): 309–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, A.I. 1982. Bayes or Laplace? An examination of the origin and early application of Bayes’ theorem. Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 27: 23–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darboux, J.G., P.E. Appell, and J.H. Poincaré. 1908. Examen critique des divers systèmes graphologiques auxquels a donné lieu le bordereau de (l’affaire Dreyfus). In L’affaire Dreyfus, La revision du procès de Rennes, Enquête de la chambre criminelle de la Cour de Cassation, 499–600. Paris: Ligue française des droits de l’homme et du citoyen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darroch, J. 1985. Probability and criminal trials. Newsletter of the Statistical Society of Australia 30: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darroch, J. 1987. Probability and criminal trials: Some comments prompted by the Splatt trial and the Royal Commission. The Professional Statistician 6: 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daston, L.J. 1981. Mathematics and the Moral Sciences: The Rise and Fall of the Probability of Judgments, 1785-1840. In Epistemological and Social Problems of the Sciences in the Early Nineteenth Century, ed. H.N. Jahnke, and M. Otte, 287–309. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dawid, P., D.L. Faigman, and S. Fienberg. 2014. Fitting science into legal contexts: Assessing effects of causes or causes of effects. Sociological Methods and Research 43: 359–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawid, P., M. Musio, and S. Fienberg. 2016. From statistical evidence to evidence of causality. Bayesian Analysis 11: 725–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H.J., and R.M. Hogarth. 1981. Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Journal of Accounting Research 19 (1): 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fienberg, S.E. 2006. When did Bayesian inference become “Bayesian”? Bayesian Analysis 1: 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, M.O., and W.B. Fairley, 1970. A Bayesian approach to identification evidence. Harvard Law Review 83: 489–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, M.O., and W.B. Fairley. 1971. The continuing debate over mathematics in the law of evidence: A comment on (trial by mathematics). Harvard Law Review 8: 1801–1809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froeb, L.M., and B.H. Kobayashi. 1996. Naïve, biased, yet Bayesian: Can juries interpret selectively produced evidence? Journal of Law Economics and Organization 12 (1): 257–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, D. 2000. Philosophical Theories of Probability. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., B. Gold, S. Kapur, and S. Houle. 1997. The seats of reason? An imaging study of deductive and inductive reasoning. NeuroReport 8: 1305–1310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D.E., and J.H. Holland. 1998. Genetic algorithms and machine learning. Machine Learning 3 (2): 95–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.F. 1988. The importance of nonmonotonicity for legal reasoning. In Expert systems in law: Impacts on legal theory and computer law, ed. H. Fiedler, F. Haft, and R. Traunmüller, 111–126. Tübingen: Attempto Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halford, G.S., J.D. Bain, M.T. Maybery, and G. Andrews. 1998. Induction of relational schemas: Common processes in reasoning and complex learning. Cognitive Psychology 35 (3): 201–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawthorne, J. 2012. Inductive logic. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/logic-inductive/.

  • Heit, E. 2000. Properties of inductive reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 7: 569–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeflich, M.H. 1986. Law and geometry: Legal science from Leibniz to Langdell. American Journal of Legal History 30: 95–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J.H., K.J. Holyoak, R.E. Nisbett, and P. Thagard. 1998. Induction: Processes of inference, learning, and discovery. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howson, C. 2000. Hume’s problem: Induction and the justification of belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene, P. 2006. Context of discovery versus context of justification and Thomas Kuhn. In Revisiting discovery and justification, ed. J. Schickore, and F. Steinle, 119–131. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, D. 1998. No wilderness of single instances: Inductive inference in law. Journal of Legal Education 48: 365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J.D. 1996. Analysing the new evidence scholarship: Towards a new conception of the law of evidence. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 16: 309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. 1991. John Stuart Mill on induction and hypotheses. Journal of the History of Philosophy 29 (1): 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaynes, E.T. 2003. Probability theory: The logic of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1993. Human and machine thinking. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadane, J.B., and D.A. Schum. 2011. A probabilistic analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti evidence. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakas, A.C., and F. Riguzzi. 2000. Abductive concept learning. New Generation Computing 18 (3): 243–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D.H. 1986. The admissibility of “probability evidence” in criminal trials—Part I. Jurimetrics 26: 343–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D.H. 2004. On falsification and falsifiability: The first Daubert factor and the philosophy of science. Jurimetrics 45: 473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keener, W.A. 1894. The inductive method in legal education. Reports of the American Bar Association 17: 473–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keppens, J., and B. Schafer. 2006. Knowledge based crime scenario modelling. Expert Systems with Applications 2: 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, ed. I. Lakatos, and A. Musgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Landman, J.H. 1927. Anent the case method of studying law. New York University Law Review 4: 139–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langdell, C.C. 1871. A selection of cases on the law of contracts: With references and citations. Boston, Mass: Little, Brown, and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langley, P., and H.A. Simon. 1995. Applications of machine learning and rule induction. Communications of the ACM 38 (11): 54–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laplace, Marquise de, P.S. 1814. Essai philosophique sur les probabilités. Paris: Courcier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R. 1977. Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Review 75: 1021–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukaszewicz, W. 1990. Non-monotonic reasoning. Chichester: Ellis-Horwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maher, P. 1993. Betting on theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martire, K.A., R.I. Kemp, M. Sayle, and B.R. Newell. 2014. On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence: Presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. Forensic Science International 240: 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, N. 1987. Why cases have rationes and what these are. In Precedent in law, ed. L. Goldstein, 155–182. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, D., and J. Doyle. 1980. Non-monotonic logic I. Artificial Intelligence 13: 41–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, J. 2003. Scientific methodologies in medieval Islam. Journal of the History of Philosophy 41: 307–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medawar, P.B. 2013. Induction and intuition in scientific thought. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalski, R.S. 1980. Pattern recognition as rule-guided inductive inference. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 4: 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalski, R.S. 1983. A theory and methodology of inductive learning. Artificial Intelligence 20: 111–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J.S. 1843. System of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: Being a connected view of the principles of evidence and the methods of scientific investigation in two volumes, vol. 1. London: John W. Parker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milton, J.R. 1987. Induction before Hume. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38: 49–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mozer, M.C. 1984. Inductive information retrieval using parallel distributed computation. No. ICS-8406. California Univ San Diego La Jolla Inst For Cognitive Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J.R. 1982. The role of analogy in legal reasoning. UCLA Law Review 29: 833–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyman, J. 1977. Frequentist probability and frequentist statistics. Synthese 36: 97–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R.E., D.H. Krantz, C. Jepson, and Z. Kunda. 1983. The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review 90 (4): 339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2007. The forensic use of bioinformation: Ethical issues. https://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/The-forensic-use-of-bioinformation-ethical-issues.pdf.

  • Oberhofer, R. 1992. Rechtsanwendung und Auslegung. In Allgemeiner Teil des bürgerlichen Rechts, 54–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osherson, D.N. 1990. Category-based induction. Psychological Review 97: 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, E.S., and Kendall, M.G. (1970) Studies in the History of Statistics and Probability. 131–153. Charles Griffin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C.S. 1903. Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking: The 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism, ed. P.A. Turrisi. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C.S. 1956. The probability of induction. In The world of mathematics, vol. 2, ed. J.R. Newman, 1341–1354. New York, N.Y.: Simon and Schuster (1st ed. 1878).

    Google Scholar 

  • Plott, C. 2000. Global history of philosophy: The period of scholasticism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., and G. Sartor. 1997. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. In Logical models of legal argumentation, ed. H. Prakken, and G. Sartor, 175–211. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissland, E.L., and Friedman, M.T. 1995. Detecting change in legal concepts. In Proceedings 5th international conference artificial intelligence and law, Melbourne, Australia, June 30–July 4, 127–136. New York, N.Y.: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, B.W., and G.A. Vignaux. 1995. Interpreting evidence. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneps, L., and C. Colmez. 2013. Math on Trial. How numbers get used and abused in the courtroom. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shnee, A. 1997. Logical reasoning obviously. Legal Writing: The Journal of Legal Writing Institute 3: 105–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, S.M. 1982. Thomas Bayes’s Bayesian inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 145: 250–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum, J.B., T.L. Griffiths, and C. Kemp. 2006. Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (7): 309–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tribe, L.H. 1971. Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review 84: 1329–1393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twining, W. 1984. Taking facts seriously. Journal of Legal Education 34: 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twining, W. 1985. Theories of evidence: Bentham and Wigmore. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij, B., F. Bex, S.T. Timmer, C.S. Vlek, J.-J. Meyer, S. Renooij, and H. Prakken. 2016. Arguments, scenarios and probabilities: Connections between three normative frameworks for evidential reasoning. Law, Probability and Risk 15: 35–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, W.A., P.J. van Koppen, and H.F. Crombag. 1993. Anchored narratives: The psychology of criminal evidence. New York, N.Y.: St Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell, W. 1840. The philosophy of the inductive sciences: Founded upon their history, vol. 1. London: JW Parker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham, H. 2014. Data science: How is it different to statistics? IMS Bulletin online, http://bulletin.imstat.org/2014/09/data-science-how-is-it-different-to-statistics%E2%80%89/.

  • Zeleznikow, J. 2000. Building decision support systems in discretionary legal domains. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology 14 (3): 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleznikow, J. 2004. The split-up project: Induction, context and knowledge discovery in law. Law, Probability and Risk 3: 147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Burkhard Schafer

  2. School of Mathematics and Maxwell Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Colin Aitken

Authors
  1. Burkhard Schafer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Colin Aitken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Burkhard Schafer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche and CIRSFID, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Giorgio Bongiovanni

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

    Gerald Postema

  3. CIRSFID, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Antonino Rotolo

  4. Department of Law, European University Institute, Florence, Italy

    Giovanni Sartor

  5. Department of Law, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

    Chiara Valentini

  6. University of Windsor, Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric (CRRAR), Windsor, Ontario, Canada

    Douglas Walton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature B.V.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schafer, B., Aitken, C. (2018). Inductive, Abductive and Probabilistic Reasoning. In: Bongiovanni, G., Postema, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G., Valentini, C., Walton, D. (eds) Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9452-0_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation