8:50 – 9:00

Giovanni Sartor

Welcome; greetings

9:00 – 9:30

James Franklin

How much of commonsense and legal reasoning is formalizable? A review

9:30 – 10:00

D. Michael Risinger

Against Symbolization—Some reflections on the limits of formal systems in the description of inferential reasoning and legal argumentation

10:00 – 10:30

Federico Picinali

Structuring inferential reasoning in criminal cases. An analogical approach

10:30 – 11:00

Coffee

Coffee

11:00 – 11:30

Michael Pardo

Relevance, Sufficiency, and Defeasible Inferences: Comments on Modeling Legal Proof

11:30 – 12:00

David Hamer

A probabilistic model of the relationship between the quantity (weight) of evidence, and its strength

12:00 – 12:30

Joseph Laronge

Evaluating Universal Sufficiency of a Single Logical Form for Inference in Court

12:30 – 1:00

Peter Tillers

A Rube Goldberg Approach to Factual Inference in Legal Settings

1:00 – 2:00

Lunch

Lunch

2:00 - 2:45

Ronald J. Allen

Taming Complexity: Rationality, the Law of Evidence, and the Nature of the Legal System

Abducing Abduction

3:30 – 4:00

Coffee

Coffee

4:00 - 4:30

Douglas Walton & Floris Bex

Combining Evidential and Legal Reasoning with Burdens and Standards of Proof

4:30 - 5:00

Bart Verheij

Can the argumentative, narrative and statistical perspectives on legal evidence and proof be integrated?

5:00 - 5:30

Henry Prakken

Can non-probabilistic models of legal evidential inference learn from probability theory?

5:30 – 6:00

Giovanni Sartor & Giuseppe Contissa

Evidence arguments in air traffic safety. A model for the law?

6:00 – 6:30

Boaz Sangero

Proposal to Reverse the View of a Confession: From Key Evidence Requiring Corroboration to Corroboration for Key Evidence