The silliness of magical realism

• Published in: The international journal of evidence & proof Vol. 23; no. 1-2; pp. 147 - 153
• Main Author: Clermont, Kevin M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.04.2019
• Subjects: standards of proof; civil procedure; logic; evidence
• ISSN: 1365-7127; 1740-5572
• DOI: 10.1177/1365712718813797

Relative plausibility, even after countless explanatory articles, remains an underdeveloped model bereft of underlying theory. Multivalent logic, a fully developed and accepted system of logic, comes to the same endpoint as relative plausibility. Multivalent logic would thus provide the missing theory, while it would resolve all the old problems of using traditional probability theory to explain the standards of proof as well as the new problems raised by the relative plausibility model. For example, multivalent logic resolves the infamous ‘conjunction paradox’ that traditional probability creates for itself, and which relative plausibility tries to sweep under the rug. Yet Professors Allen and Pardo dismiss multivalent logic as magical realism when applied to legal factfinding. They reject this ring buoy because they misunderstand nonclassical logic, as this response explains.