Go to Links to Tillers' Online Papers and Notes
Some of Tillers' papers are available on SSRN
2. Evidence: Law & Theory
3. Evidence: Technology & Theory
A system, or procedure, for sorting out, or organizing, your thoughts about a case or possible case:
Try one of the following two methods to view and play with MarshalPlan 5.0:
1. MarshalPlan on the web: If you use Firefox 3.x and you are willing to accept a plug-in, you may be able to view MarshalPlan 5.0 in your (Firefox) browser. To try this, click this link.
2. This is the simplest method and should work for almost everyone: Go to this folder and download the version of the software that works with your operating system (i.e., Windows, Linux, or some Apple operating system).
The main disadvantage of this method of downloading MarshalPlan is that some of the otherwise spoken explanations and notes appear only as text. But this is not a significant disadvantage -- unless you hunger for the sound of the (virtual) human voice.
Go here for theoretical notes on MarshalPlan
Caveats about MarshalPlan 5.0:
1. The current iteration of MarshalPlan -- MarshalPlan 5.0 -- is not a prototype of a working application suitable for real-time and real-world use. Far from it! However, MarshalPlan 5.0 goes beyond scratchings (text) that state how an evidence marshaling application might work. But it is not far from the truth to say that MarshalPlan is mainly an elaborate visual illustration of some of the directions that development of software for marshaling evidence in legal settings should take. But, but ... MarshalPlan 5.0 is a bit more than an illustration of possible future directions for research and development. MarshalPlan, as it now stands, is useful for pedagogical (i.e., teaching) purposes. Moreover, MarshalPlan is creeping ever closer to being something akin to a genuine software prototype suitable for real-world and real-time use.
2. In MarshalPlan 5.0 there are only brief explanations of some of the evidence marshaling strategies found there. Other marshaling strategies, however, are described and explained more fully. For a comprehensive account of the thinking that went into MarshalPlan, please see the readings mentioned above. If you want a truly comprehensive theory-laden explanation of MarshalPlan, you will have to invite me to give a leisurely talk (preferably on a tropical island or some other attractive venue).
3. A few buttons and links may not work. If that happens, try other buttons and links. (Otherwise resort to expletives. You have my permission.)
4. MarshalPlan 5.0 is not set up to be linked to a database. This is a most serious deficiency for any possible real-world use in a context such as law practice.
Workshop on AI & Evidential Inference
in conjunction with ICAIL 2011
University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 2011
Conference on Quantitative Aspects of Justice and Fairness: Proportionality and Justice
European University Institute, Florence, Italy, February 25-26, 2011
Third International Conference on Quantitative Justice and Fairness:
QJustice 12 goes Lisbon
University of Lisbon, Portugal, May 22-24, 2012
One principal topic: Inference and Causality
The Law of Evidence formerly on Spindle Law Is Not Here!
A short note about the evidence module
Go to Links to Tillers' Online Papers and Notes
In recent decades there have been significant advances in the understanding of evidence and inference. One of my major interests is in making use of some of these advances to gain insights into evidence, inference, and proof in litigation. I have found it particularly useful to ponder Bayesianism, L.J. Cohen's theory of induction and proof, Glenn Shafer's theory of evidence and his theory of causality, inference networks, David Schum's theory of hierarchical inference, and the evolving views and ambitions of AI theorists. My general "take" on the nature of evidence and inference has been heavily influenced by my understanding of Kant's epistemology and its problems. I believe that Hegel (while making a hash of many things) and neo-Kantians such as Ernst Cassirer appropriately recognized that Kantian premises generate more contingency and subjectivity in human knowledge than Kant himself was willing to acknowledge.
Written ca. 1998:
A Philosophical Chestnut in Inferential Garb
There is a longstanding philosophical debate about the
relationship between "facts" and "values." This philosophical chestnut
takes a particularly interesting form in the context of evidence and
inference. Some theorists insist on a sharp distinction between
descriptive theories of inference and prescriptive or normative
theories of inference. This distinction, however, may be difficult to
sustain if one thinks that whenever one describes a form of inference
one describes a form of reasoning or logic. Furthermore, close study of
inferential argument suggests that the source of many of the principles
or generalizations on which people rely when they draw inferences is as
likely to be culture as it is to be personal or scientific experience.
Students of probability, induction, and inference must in the future
think more carefully than they have in the past about the relationship
between "rational inference" and matters such as culture and "values."
While I am no great fan of movements such as deconstruction, there may
be more than is generally acknowledged to the Hegelian idea than that
human societies and communities are grand experiments, tests, or wagers
of the viability or validity of particular "world views," views of the
world that may prove to be right (or wrong) but whose accuracy or
adequacy cannot be demonstrated while they are being tested. I hope to
examine this matter -- the relationship between "rational inference"
and matters such as culture, cultural values, prejudice, personal
values, and personal beliefs -- in more detail in the years to come.
(Testimony) of David A. Schum & Peter Tillers (Dec. 21, 1994)
in United States of America versus Charles O. Shonubi
Dates: January 28-29, 2007.
Venue: Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University, 55 Fifth Avenue
(5th Ave. & 12th St.), New York (Manhattan), New York
Drafts and abstracts of some of the papers and comments are available online at http://tillers.net/conference.html.
Final versions of many of the conference papers as well as some additional related papers are available at Law, Probability and Risk.
Decisions, Decisions! :
Dynamic Proof and Nonstationary Decision Making in Litigation:
On Probability and Uncertainty in Law:
On Creativity, Contamination, Time & Irreversibility in Proof:
Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Proof:
Exclusively for hearsay aficionados!: