Evidence, probability and relative plausibility

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.