Soru

In Anglo-American civil litigation, the standard of proof in non-criminal trials is the "preponderance of the evidence," conventionally formalized by legal theorists as requiring a fact-finder to establish that a contested factual proposition has a subjective epistemic probability exceeding 0.50. However, this purely probabilistic framework generates notorious theoretical paradoxes when confronted with what legal philosophers term "naked statistical evidence." In the classic hypothetical known as the Gatecrasher Paradox, an event promoter sells 499 tickets to an exhibition, yet 1,000 spectators are observed in the arena. If the promoter sues an arbitrary, randomly selected attendee for gatecrashing, the mathematical probability that this specific individual entered without paying is 50.1 percent—nominally satisfying the preponderance threshold. Yet common-law courts uniformly refuse to impose liability based solely on background statistical base rates in the absence of individualized testimony or physical evidence.

Early law-and-economics scholars attempted to rationalize this judicial reluctance through incentive-based utilitarian arguments. They posited that imposing liability on the basis of macro-statistical distributions would systematically undermine primary behavioral incentives: if an actor is held liable merely because members of their demographic or class frequently commit a tort, paying for admission or exercising due care yields no marginal reduction in expected legal exposure. While this economic critique illuminates systemic efficiency concerns, it fails to explain why judicial intuition regards naked statistical proof as fundamentally deficient even in isolated, single-play cases where incentive distortion is negligible or absent.

Recent scholarship in legal epistemology offers a more compelling resolution by shifting focus from probabilistic thresholds to the modal robustness of judicial belief. Epistemologists argue that legitimate legal findings require not merely high statistical probability, but the elimination of relevant epistemic luck—a condition formalized as "epistemic sensitivity." A belief is sensitive if, had the underlying fact been false, the evidence relied upon would have adjusted accordingly. Naked statistical data fails this sensitivity criterion: the statistical base rate in the arena remains 50.1 percent regardless of whether the specific defendant before the court actually bought a ticket. By contrast, individualized evidence—such as a torn ticket stub or eyewitness testimony—is modally connected to the specific event and would not exist if the defendant had complied with the law. Thus, the legal system's refusal to adjudicate on bare statistics reflects a coherent commitment to epistemic justification rather than an irrational resistance to mathematical formalism.

Based on the passage above, what is the primary purpose of the author?