Explaining the justificatory asymmetry between statistical and individualized evidence

Book chapter


Jorgensen Bolinger, Renèe. (2021). Explaining the justificatory asymmetry between statistical and individualized evidence. In In Hoskins, Zachary and Robson, Jon (Ed.). The social epistemology of legal trials pp. 60-76 Routledge.
AuthorsJorgensen Bolinger, Renèe
EditorsHoskins, Zachary and Robson, Jon
Abstract

In some cases, there appears to be an asymmetry in the evidential value of statistical and more individualized evidence. For example, while I may accept that Alex is guilty based on eyewitness testimony that is 80% likely to be accurate, it does not seem permissible to do so based on the fact that 80% of a group that Alex is a member of are guilty. In this chapter, I suggest that rather than reflecting a deep defect in statistical evidence, this asymmetry might arise from a general constraint on rational inquiry. Plausibly, the degree of evidential support needed to justify taking a proposition to be true depends on the stakes of error. While relying on statistical evidence plausibly raises the stakes by introducing new kinds of risk to members of the reference class, paradigmatically ‘individualized’ evidence—evidence tracing back to A's voluntary behavior—can lower the stakes. The net result explains the apparent evidential asymmetry without positing a deep difference in the brute justificatory power of different types of evidence.

Page range60-76
Year2021
Book titleThe social epistemology of legal trials
PublisherRoutledge
Place of publicationNew York, NY, United States of America
ISBN9780429283123
Research or scholarlyResearch
Output statusPublished
Publication dates
Online17 Feb 2021
Publication process dates
Deposited15 Sep 2021
Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/8ww25/explaining-the-justificatory-asymmetry-between-statistical-and-individualized-evidence

  • 0
    total views
  • 0
    total downloads
  • 0
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month
These values are for the period from 19th October 2020, when this repository was created.

Export as

Related outputs

#BelieveWomen and the ethics of belief
Bolinger, Renée Jorgensen. (2021). #BelieveWomen and the ethics of belief. In In Schwartzberg, Melissa and Kitcher, Philip (Ed.). Truth and evidence pp. 145-192 New York University Press.
The moral grounds of reasonably mistaken self-defense
Bolinger, Renée Jorgensen. (2021). The moral grounds of reasonably mistaken self-defense. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 103(1), pp. 140-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12705
Strictly speaking
Bolinger, Renée Jorgensen and Sandgren, Alexander. (2020). Strictly speaking. Analysis. 80(1), pp. 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anz017
Contested slurs : Delimiting the linguistic community
Bolinger, Renee. (2020). Contested slurs : Delimiting the linguistic community. Grazer Philosophische Studien. 97(1), pp. 11-30. https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-09701003
Varieties of moral encroachment
Jorgensen Bolinger, Renée. (2020). Varieties of moral encroachment. Philosophical Perspectives. 34(1), pp. 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12124
The rational impermissibility of accepting (some) racial generalizations
Bolinger, Renee. (2020). The rational impermissibility of accepting (some) racial generalizations. Synthese. 197(6), pp. 2415-2431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1809-5
Metalinguistic negotiations in moral disagreement
Bolinger, Renée Jorgensen. (2020). Metalinguistic negotiations in moral disagreement. Inquiry. pp. 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1850336