Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

What does it mean to be "Plausible"?

Dahlman, Christian LU (2024) In Quaestio Facti - International Journal of Evidential Legal Reasoning p.91-102
Abstract
This article explores what «plausible» means in statements about legal evidence and shows that it is highly ambiguous. Twelve different meanings of «plausibility» are identified and distin-guished from each other by definitions. Contrary to what has been claimed by some evidence scholars (Allen and Pardo, 2019), the article shows that all uses of «plausibility» can be captured in terms of probability. The author also shows that the exposed ambiguity is deeply problematic for legal practice and legal scholarship. The fundamental principle of justice that «like cases should be treated alike» is endangered when the standard of proof is expressed in an ambiguous way, and the scientific testability of hypotheses about legal fact-finding is... (More)
This article explores what «plausible» means in statements about legal evidence and shows that it is highly ambiguous. Twelve different meanings of «plausibility» are identified and distin-guished from each other by definitions. Contrary to what has been claimed by some evidence scholars (Allen and Pardo, 2019), the article shows that all uses of «plausibility» can be captured in terms of probability. The author also shows that the exposed ambiguity is deeply problematic for legal practice and legal scholarship. The fundamental principle of justice that «like cases should be treated alike» is endangered when the standard of proof is expressed in an ambiguous way, and the scientific testability of hypotheses about legal fact-finding is undermined when these hypotheses are formulated in ambiguous terms. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Procedural law, Processrätt
in
Quaestio Facti - International Journal of Evidential Legal Reasoning
issue
7
pages
91 - 102
publisher
Marcial Pons
external identifiers
  • scopus:85212249494
ISSN
2604-6202
DOI
10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i7.23030
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
8340dd3c-25a9-42d8-988e-342ae230b528
date added to LUP
2024-07-02 11:05:00
date last changed
2025-04-04 13:52:04
@article{8340dd3c-25a9-42d8-988e-342ae230b528,
  abstract     = {{This article explores what «plausible» means in statements about legal evidence and shows that it is highly ambiguous. Twelve different meanings of «plausibility» are identified and distin-guished from each other by definitions. Contrary to what has been claimed by some evidence scholars (Allen and Pardo, 2019), the article shows that all uses of «plausibility» can be captured in terms of probability. The author also shows that the exposed ambiguity is deeply problematic for legal practice and legal scholarship. The fundamental principle of justice that «like cases should be treated alike» is endangered when the standard of proof is expressed in an ambiguous way, and the scientific testability of hypotheses about legal fact-finding is undermined when these hypotheses are formulated in ambiguous terms.}},
  author       = {{Dahlman, Christian}},
  issn         = {{2604-6202}},
  keywords     = {{Procedural law; Processrätt}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{7}},
  pages        = {{91--102}},
  publisher    = {{Marcial Pons}},
  series       = {{Quaestio Facti - International Journal of Evidential Legal Reasoning}},
  title        = {{What does it mean to be "Plausible"?}},
  url          = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/190369771/Dahlman_What_does_it_mean_to_be_plausible_QF_2024_elektroniskt_s_rtryck_.pdf}},
  doi          = {{10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i7.23030}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}