LOGIC AND PROBABILITY ASPECT OF ELECTRONIC JUSTICE
Abstract
Prospect of complete electronic justice is analyzed in the light of ability to assess legal arguments quantitatively which is grounded on the logical probability concept. Specificity and range of application of the Leibniz-ian approach to the assessment are elucidated in comparison with the “objec-tive Bayesianism”. A fundamental drawback that challenges any attempt to fulfil complete electronic justice today is pointed out: this one is generated by essential role of human intuition in assigning of the initial data necessary to assess legal arguments quantitatively. Presumably, final completion of electronic justice will demand not only objective and powerful artificial intelligence but relevant artificial intuition as well.
References
1. Монтень М. Опыты: в трех книгах. Книги первая и вторая. – М.: Издво «Наука», 1980. – 704 с.
2. Walton D. Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law. – Berlin – Heidelberg: Springer, 2005. – 270 p.
3. Nissan E. Computer Application for Handling Legal Evidence, Police Investigation and Case Argumentation. – Vol. 1. – Dordrecht e.a.: Springer Science + Business Media, 2012. – 1340 p.
4. Hacking I. The Emergence of Probability. A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas about Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference. – Cambridge [a.u.]: Cambridge University Press, 1993. – 209 p.
5. Шейнин О.Б. Комментарий 1. Якоб Бернулли и начало теории вероятностей // Бернулли Я. О законе больших чисел. – М.: Наука, 1980. – С. 83-115.
6. Лейбниц Г.В. Некоторые соображения о развитии наук и искусстве открытия // Лейбниц Г.В. Соч. в 4-х т. – Т. 3. – М.: Мысль, 1984. – С. 461-479.
7. Keynes J.M. Treatise on Probability // The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes. – Vol. VIII. – Cambridge: Macmillan, Cambridge University Press, 1973. – 514 p.
8. Carnap R. Intellectual Autobiography // The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. – La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1963. – P. 3-84.
9. Carnap R. Replies and Systematic Expositions // The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. – La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1963. – P. 859-1014.
10. Jackson J.D. Analyzing the New Evidence Scholarship: Towards a New Conceptions of the Law of Evidence // Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. – 1996. – Vol. 16. – N 2. – P. 309-328.
11. Park R.C., Saks M.J. Evidence Scholarship Reconsidered: Results of Interdisciplinary Turn [Electronic recourse] // Boston College Law Review. – 2006. – Vol. 47. – N 5. – P. 949-1031. – Access mode: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2341&context=bclr.
12. Franklin J. The Objective Bayesian Conceptualization of Proof and Reference Class Problem // Sydney Law Review. – 2011. – Vol. 33. – P. 545-561.
13. Black J. Quantifying Support // Informal Logic. – 1991. – Vol. 13. – N 1. – P. 21-30.
14. Tyaglo A.V. How to Improve the Convergent Argument Calculation // Informal Logic. – 2002. – Vol. 22. – N 1. – P. 61-71.
15. Тягло А.В. К оценке юридического аргумента // Вісник Харківського національного університету імені В. Н. Каразіна. Серія «Філософія». – 2012. – № 1039. – Вип. 47. – С. 35-43.
16. Reed C., Walton D., Macango F. Argument Diagramming in Logic, Law, and Artificial Intelligence // The Knowledge Engineering Review. – 2007. – 22 (1). – P. 87-109.
17. Hodgson D. Probability: The Logic of the Law – A Response [Electronic resource] // Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. – 1995. – Vol. 15. – N 1. – P. 51-68. – Access mode: http://users/tpg.com.au/raeda/website/probability.htm
Review
For citations:
Tiaglo A. LOGIC AND PROBABILITY ASPECT OF ELECTRONIC JUSTICE. Philosophical Problems of IT & Cyberspace (PhilIT&C). 2013;(2):31-42. (In Russ.)
Views:
100
Email this article 