نوع مقاله : پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشآموخته کارشناسی ارشد فلسفه علم، دانشکدهی مدیریت، علم و فناوری، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر تهران، ایران.
2 استادیار گروه مطالعات علم و فناوری، دانشکدهی مدیریت، علم و فناوری، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران، ایران
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
Proof paradoxes refer to situations where naked statistical evidence supports the conviction of a defendant, yet the resulting judgment appears counterintuitive when considered solely from this evidence. The prevailing approach to addressing proof paradoxes involves distinguishing naked statistical evidence from other types of evidence. In this framework, Thomson (1986) proposes that the existence of a causal relationship between the evidence and its source can serve as a criterion for this distinction. Conversely, Redmayne (2008) contends that Thomson's proposal is unhelpful, arguing that even with naked statistical evidence, a causal relationship can be established in accordance with Thomson's view. In this study, we demonstrate that, by leveraging Pollock's nomic probability theory and Woodward's causal model, Thomson's proposed criterion can be refined to effectively address Redmayne's criticisms.
کلیدواژهها English
