From legal proof to scientific proof

Coherence, Evidence, and Legal Proof

A simple proof of Zariski's Lemma

‎Our aim in this very short note is to show that the proof of the‎ ‎following well-known fundamental lemma of Zariski follows from an‎ ‎argument similar to the proof of the fact that the rational field‎ ‎$mathbb{Q}$ is not a finitely generated $mathbb{Z}$-algebra.

Lakatos and Hersh on Mathematical Proof

مفهوم اثبات در چند دهۀ اخیر مناقشه­آمیز شده است. به طوری که افراد نظریه‌های مختلفی دربارۀ چیستی اثبات ارائه داده­اند. لاکاتوش و هرش از جملۀ این افراد هستند. نظریه‌های این دو فیلسوف شباهت­ها و اختلافات قابل توجهی دارند. به نظر می‌‌رسد که با مقایسه و بررسی نقادانۀ این دو نظریه فهم بهتری از مفهوم اثبات ریاضیاتی به دست خواهد آمد. دو وجه شباهت مهم بین این دو نظریه عبارتند از: دوگانه‌انگاری در اثبات ...

Significance Tests, Belief Calculi, and Burden of Proof in Legal and Scientific Discourse

We review the definition of the Full Bayesian Significance Test (FBST), and summarize its main statistical and epistemological characteristics. We review also the Abstract Belief Calculus (ABC) of Derwiche and Ginsberg, and use it to analyze the FBST’s value of evidence. This analysis helps us understand the FBST properties, specially its consistency with the Onus Probandi principle, and why it...

The Paradox Of Proof And Scientific Expertise

In this paper I criticize the current standards for the acceptability of expert testimony in current US legislation. The standards have been the subject of much academic literature after the Frye and Daubert cases. I expose what I call the Paradox of Proof, and argue that the historical and current standards have sidestepped the problem of determining who is an expert and who is not in a court ...