Burdens of Persuasion and Standards of Proof in Structured Argumentation

2021 ◽  
pp. 40-59
Author(s):  
Roberta Calegari ◽  
Giovanni Sartor
Keyword(s):  
Structured Argumentation ◽  
Standards Of Proof

scholarly journals Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high

2021 ◽  
Vol 165 (3-4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth A. Lloyd ◽  
Naomi Oreskes ◽  
Sonia I. Seneviratne ◽  
Edward J. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Central Question ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Policy Context ◽  
Standards Of Proof

AbstractStandards of proof for attributing real world events/damage to global warming should be the same as in clinical or environmental lawsuits, argue Lloyd et al. The central question that we raise is effective communication. How can climate scientists best and effectively communicate their findings to crucial non-expert audiences, including public policy makers and civil society? To address this question, we look at the mismatch between what courts require and what climate scientists are setting as a bar of proof. Our first point is that scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context. Our second point is to recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommend more prominently the use of the category “more likely than not” as a level of proof in their reports, as this corresponds to the standard of proof most frequently required in civil court rooms. This has also implications for public policy and the public communication of climate evidence.

scholarly journals Error Costs, Legal Standards of Proof, and Statistical Significance

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle M. Burtis ◽  
Jonah B. Gelbach ◽  
Bruce H. Kobayashi
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Error Costs

scholarly journals Security assurance cases—state of the art of an emerging approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mazen Mohamad ◽  
Jan-Philipp Steghöfer ◽  
Riccardo Scandariato
Keyword(s):  
State Of The Art ◽  
Tool Support ◽  
Security Assurance ◽  
The Past ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Structured Argumentation ◽  
Security Properties ◽  
Standards And Regulations ◽  
Assurance Cases ◽  
Security Standards

AbstractSecurity Assurance Cases (SAC) are a form of structured argumentation used to reason about the security properties of a system. After the successful adoption of assurance cases for safety, SAC are getting significant traction in recent years, especially in safety-critical industries (e.g., automotive), where there is an increasing pressure to be compliant with several security standards and regulations. Accordingly, research in the field of SAC has flourished in the past decade, with different approaches being investigated. In an effort to systematize this active field of research, we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of the existing academic studies on SAC. Our review resulted in an in-depth analysis and comparison of 51 papers. Our results indicate that, while there are numerous papers discussing the importance of SAC and their usage scenarios, the literature is still immature with respect to concrete support for practitioners on how to build and maintain a SAC. More importantly, even though some methodologies are available, their validation and tool support is still lacking.

Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof.

1985 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy K. Kagehiro ◽  
W. Clark Stanton
Keyword(s):  
Standards Of Proof

A structured argumentation system with backing and undercutting

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 149-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Cohen ◽  
Alejandro J. García ◽  
Guillermo R. Simari
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation System ◽  
Structured Argumentation

Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation

1999 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Redmayne
Keyword(s):  
Civil Litigation ◽  
Standards Of Proof

scholarly journals Standards of Proof and Civil Litigation: A Game-Theoretic Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Guerra ◽  
Barbara Luppi ◽  
Francesco Parisi
Keyword(s):  
Critical Role ◽  
Policy Instrument ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Game Theoretic Analysis ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Game Theoretic ◽  
Truth Finding ◽  
Selection Of

AbstractIn litigation models, the parties’ probability to succeed in a lawsuit hinge upon the merits of the parties’ claims and their litigation efforts. In this paper we extend this framework to consider an important procedural aspect of the legal system: the standard of proof. We recast the conventional litigation model to consider how alternative standards of proof affect litigation choices. We analyze the interrelation between different standards of proof, the effectiveness of the parties’ efforts, and the merits of the case. We study how these factors jointly affect the parties’ litigation expenditures, the selection of cases brought to the courts, pretrial bargain solutions and preemptive strategies. Our results show that standards of proof are not only instrumental to balancing the competing goals of access to justice and judicial truth-finding, but they also play a critical role in affecting parties’ litigation investments and settlement choices, and in sorting the mix of cases that will actually be filed and defended in courts. The understanding of the sorting effect of standards of proof sheds light on their role as a policy instrument in civil litigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document