منابع مشابه
Prostate Cancer Screening: The Pendulum has Swung, and the Burden of Proof Is with Proponents.
Because prostate cancer screening guidelines have wide implications and generate strong opinions, the debate has spilled outside the pages of the peer-reviewed biomedical literature and into the popular press. In July 2015, Dr. Deepak Kapoor, a urologist, published an op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled, “Bring Back Prostate Screening.”1 In it, he counsels that advances in magnetic reson...
متن کاملBurden of Proof
This paper presents an analysis of the concept of burden of proof in argument. Relationship of burden of proof to three traditional informal fallacies is considered: (i) argumentum ad hominem (ii) petitio principii and (iii) argumentum ad ignorantiam. Other topics discussed include persuasive dialogue, pragmatic reasoning, legal burden of proof, plausible reasoning in regulated disputes, rules ...
متن کاملGeneral Revenue Financing of Medicare: Who Will Bear the Burden?
Two recent national advisory committees on Social Security recommended major shifts in Medicare financing to preserve the financial viability of the Social Security trust funds. This paper estimates the income redistribution consequences of the two proposals, in contrast to current law, using a micro-simulation model of taxes and premiums. These estimates show that while the current Medicare fi...
متن کاملFacts , Values , and the Burden of Proof — — — — — — ✦ — — — — — —
I examine here the connection between facts, values, and the burden of proof, and I suggest a relationship that is always present, though seldom acknowledged. We like to think of ourselves as conducting value-free scientific inquiry, yet values inevitably intrude. This inevitable intrusion does not necessarily suggest the abandonment of the attempt to keep facts and values separate, but it does...
متن کاملEvidence , Probability , and the Burden of Proof
This Article analyzes the probabilistic and epistemological underpinnings of the burden of proof doctrine. We show that this doctrine is best understood as instructing factfinders to determine which of the parties’ conflicting stories makes most sense in terms of coherence, consilience, causality, and evidential coverage. By applying this method, factfinders should try—and will often succeed—to...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Family Court Review
سال: 2005
ISSN: 1531-2445,1744-1617
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2005.00002.x