“No such thing as probability” in the Law? – this does not compute

That’s not a quote from reasons for judgment (yet).

Across the North Atlantic, two professors of mathematics who ought to have crossed a few quadrangles – no doubt somebody was about –  and asked for clarification have shown that some mathematicians know as little about law as some lawyers (academic or in practice) know about math.

See “”No such thing as probability” in the Law?” here and here.

I have it on good authority that there are well-regarded law faculties at the schools with which both professors are associated.

 

Bayes Theorem, Revisited

It won’t surprise some of you that I have an interest in evidence theory. I wrote, recently, on Slaw, about the use of Bayes Theorem in civil litigation in Canada. You will find that posting, as well as other discussions of Bayes Theorem on Slaw at this link.

I just learned of  – I stumbled across it looking for something else – a recent doctoral theses on the use of Bayes Theorem in litigation. (The Americans fought this battle more than a decade ago: see the paper here.) We’re slow in Canada. It must be the weather. It can’t be that Canada is a “slow zone” as in, for example, Vernor Vinge’s “A Fire Upon The Deep“.

In any event, it’s a Canadian thesis, to boot.

Continue reading →