Evidence, Risk, and Proof Paradoxes: Pessimism about the Epistemic Project

Giada Fratantonio

doi:10.1177/13657127211035831

Abstract

Why can testimony alone be enough for findings of liability? Why statistical evidence alone can't? These questions underpin the ‘Proof Paradox’. Many epistemologists have attempted to explain this paradox from a purely epistemic perspective. I call it the ‘Epistemic Project’. In this paper, I take a step back from this recent trend. Stemming from considerations about the nature and role of standards of proof, I define three requirements that any successful account in line with the Epistemic Project should meet. I then consider three recent epistemic accounts on which the standard is met when the evidence rules out modal risk (Pritchard 2018), normic risk (Ebert et al., 2020), or relevant alternatives (Gardiner 2019 2020). I argue that none of these accounts meets all the requirements. Finally, I offer reasons to be pessimistic about the prospects of having a successful epistemic explanation of the paradox. I suggest the discussion on the proof paradox would benefit from undergoing a ‘value-turn’.

Highlights

According to a traditional interpretation of the civil standard of proof, i.e., preponderance of evidence, the standard of proof is met when the available evidence makes it more likely than not that the defendant is liable
Mr Brown is run over by a bus on Montgomery Street; 90% of the buses travelling on this street are owned by the Blue Bus
A bystander testifies that she saw a blue bus hitting Mr Brown

Summary

Introduction

According to a traditional interpretation of the civil standard of proof, i.e., preponderance of evidence, the standard of proof is met when the available evidence makes it more likely than not that the defendant is liable. Mr Brown is run over by a bus on Montgomery Street; 90% of the buses travelling on this street are owned by the Blue Bus. Company, and 10% by the Red Bus Company. Mr Brown, couldn’t see the colour of the bus He decides to sue the Blue Bus Company. Given the only evidence available is statistical evidence, the Blue Bus Company is not and should not be found liable.. BLUE BUS TESTIMONY Mr Brown is run over by a bus on Montgomery Street. He couldn’t see which bus hit him. A bystander testifies that she saw a blue bus hitting Mr Brown. Given eyewitness testimony is the only evidence available, the Blue Bus Company is and should be found liable.

Objectives

Findings

Conclusion