Abstract
A comparison is made between probability and relative plausibility as approaches for the interpretation of evidence. It is argued that a probabilistic approach is capable of answering the criticisms of the proponents of relative plausibility. It is also shown that a probabilistic approach can answer the problem of overlapping where there is evidence that each side claims supports its theory of what happened.
Full Text 
Sign-in/Register to access full text options
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Paper version not known
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
