{"title":"相对合理性理论的理由:有希望,但不充分","authors":"R. Hastie","doi":"10.1177/1365712718816749","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Allen and Pardo's Relative Plausibility Model provides a mostly valid descriptive model for the reasoning of fact-finders like American jurors. My major reservations on the project concern the incompleteness of the authors’ review of empirical, behavioral research relevant to their proposal. The merits of the project as a normative model are less satisfying and, again, the review of relevant sources seems incomplete.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"23 1","pages":"134 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1365712718816749","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The case for relative plausibility theory: Promising, but insufficient\",\"authors\":\"R. Hastie\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1365712718816749\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Allen and Pardo's Relative Plausibility Model provides a mostly valid descriptive model for the reasoning of fact-finders like American jurors. My major reservations on the project concern the incompleteness of the authors’ review of empirical, behavioral research relevant to their proposal. The merits of the project as a normative model are less satisfying and, again, the review of relevant sources seems incomplete.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"134 - 140\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1365712718816749\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Evidence & Proof\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718816749\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712718816749","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
The case for relative plausibility theory: Promising, but insufficient
Allen and Pardo's Relative Plausibility Model provides a mostly valid descriptive model for the reasoning of fact-finders like American jurors. My major reservations on the project concern the incompleteness of the authors’ review of empirical, behavioral research relevant to their proposal. The merits of the project as a normative model are less satisfying and, again, the review of relevant sources seems incomplete.