The Silliness of Magical Realism

23 Int’l J. Evidence & Proof ___ Forthcoming, DOI/10.1177/1365712718813797

Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-07

10 Pages Posted: 5 Feb 2019 Last revised: 15 Feb 2019

Date Written: January 22, 2019

Abstract

Professors Allen and Pardo champion "relative plausibility" to explain the standards of proof. But even after countless explanatory articles, it remains an underdeveloped model bereft of underlying theory. Multivalent logic, a fully developed and accepted system of logic, comes to the same endpoint as relative plausibility. Multivalent logic would thus provide the missing theory, while it would resolve all the old problems of using traditional probability theory to explain the standards of proof as well as the new problems raised by the relative plausibility model. For example, multivalent logic resolves the infamous "conjunction paradox" that traditional probability creates for itself, and which relative plausibility tries to sweep under the rug.

Yet Allen & Pardo dismiss multivalent logic as magical realism when applied to legal factfinding. They reject this ring buoy because they misunderstand nonclassical logic, as this response explains.

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Evidence, Standards of Proof, Logic

JEL Classification: K40

Suggested Citation

Clermont, Kevin M., The Silliness of Magical Realism (January 22, 2019). 23 Int’l J. Evidence & Proof ___ Forthcoming, DOI/10.1177/1365712718813797, Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 19-07, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3320571

Kevin M. Clermont (Contact Author)

Cornell Law School ( email )

Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
United States
607-255-5189 (Phone)
607-255-7193 (Fax)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
52
Abstract Views
348
rank
414,774
PlumX Metrics