首页> 外文OA文献 >Analysing and exemplifying forensic conclusion criteria in terms of Bayesian decision theory
【2h】

Analysing and exemplifying forensic conclusion criteria in terms of Bayesian decision theory

机译:根据贝叶斯决策理论分析和举例说明法证结论标准

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

There is ongoing discussion in forensic science and the law about the nature of the conclusions reached based on scientific evidence, and on how such conclusions – and conclusion criteria – may be justified by rational argument. Examples, among others, are encountered in fields such as fingermarks (e.g., ‘this fin- germark comes from Mr. A’s left thumb’), handwriting examinations (e.g., ‘the questioned signature is that of Mr. A’), kinship analyses (e.g., ‘Mr. A is the father of child C’) or anthropology (e.g., ‘these are human remains’). Considerable developments using formal methods of reasoning based on, for example (Bayesian) decision theory, are available in literature, but currently such reference principles are not explicitly used in operational forensic reporting and ensuing decision-making. Moreover, applied examples, illustrating the principles, are scarce. A potential consequence of this in practical proceedings, and hence a cause of concern, is that underlying ingredients of decision criteria (such as losses quantifying the undesirability of adverse decision consequences), are not properly dealt with. There is merit, thus, in pursuing the study and discussion of practical examples, demonstrating that formal decision-theoretic principles are not merely conceptual considerations. Actually, these principles can be shown to underpin practical decision-making procedures and existing legal decision criteria, though often not explicitly apparent as such. In this paper, we will present such examples and discuss their properties from a Bayesian decision-theoretic perspec- tive. We will argue that these are essential concepts for an informed discourse on decision-making across forensic disciplines and the development of a coherent view on this topic. We will also emphasize that these principles are of normative nature in the sense that they provide standards against which actual judg- ment and decision-making may be compared. Most importantly, these standards are justified independently of peoples’ observable decision behaviour, and of whether or not one endorses these formal methods of reasoning.
机译:法医学和法学界一直在讨论基于科学证据得出的结论的性质,以及如何通过理性的论证来证明这些结论以及结论标准。例如,在指印(例如“此指纹来自A先生的左手拇指”),笔迹检查(例如“所问的签名是A先生的签名”),亲属关系分析等领域中会遇到示例。 (例如,“ A先生是孩子C的父亲”)或人类学(例如,“这些是人类遗骸”)。文献中提供了使用基于(贝叶斯)决策理论的形式化推理方法的大量进展,但目前,此类参考原则并未明确地用于操作性法医报告和随后的决策中。而且,缺乏说明原理的应用示例。这在实际程序中的潜在后果是引起关注的一个原因,那就是决策标准的基本要素(例如,量化不良决策后果的不合需要的损失)没有得到适当处理。因此,在进行实际示例的研究和讨论时,有其优点,表明正式的决策理论原理不仅仅是概念上的考虑。实际上,这些原则可以证明是实践决策程序和现有法律决策标准的基础,尽管通常并没有如此明显地体现出来。在本文中,我们将介绍此类示例,并从贝叶斯决策理论的角度讨论它们的性质。我们将争辩说,这些是必不可少的概念,对于在法医学科范围内进行明智的决策讨论以及就该主题形成一致的观点而言,都是必不可少的。我们还将强调这些原则具有规范性,因为它们提供了可以与实际判断和决策进行比较的标准。最重要的是,这些标准的合理性独立于人们的可观察的决策行为,也不取决于人们是否认可这些正式的推理方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号