Argument schemes for discussing Bayesian modellings of complex criminal cases

Abstract

In this paper two discussions between experts about Bayesian modellings of complex criminal cases are analysed on their argumentation structure. The usefulness of several recognised argument schemes is confirmed, two new schemes for interpretation arguments and for arguments from statistics are proposed, and an analysis is given of debates about the validity of arguments. From a practical point of view the case study yields insights into the design of support software for discussions about Bayesian modellings of complex criminal cases.