• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

In re M vs Z, the Narrative Fallacy, Menashe & Shamash. Wrap your minds around this!

H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
In re M vs Z, the Narrative Fallacy, Menashe & Shamash. Wrap your minds around this!

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1137432

The Narrative Fallacy,
Doron Menashe,University of Haifa - Research Authority
Hamutal Esther Shamash, affiliation not provided to SSRN

International Commentary on Evidence, Vol. 3, Iss. 1, Article 3, 2005

Abstract said:
This article uses narrative theory to apply a critical analysis to holistic evidence theory.

As an alternative to evidentiary holism, we present traditional atomism as a system geared to the protection of defendants against the adverse influence of prevalent hegemonic narratives, which contributes to and strengthens educational symbolic values (such as the commitment to judging the actions of the accused rather than the accused herself, or the presumption of innocence) as well as protecting marginalized groups in society (including accused people generally).

We do not challenge the argument regarding the importance of and perhaps even the need for narrative, as a method of granting meaning to human experience. We do challenge the normative implications commonly drawn from these theories.

In this context we present and critique Professor Allen's theory of Relative Plausibility, and Professor Burns' endorsement of freedom of proof. We emphasize the importance of general principles of evidence law (such as Rule 403, in the Federal Rules of Evidence) and the admissibility rules (such as the inadmissibility of hearsay and opinion) as brakes that impede narrative freedom, requiring reference to questions of the credibility of information used by adjudicators, and the personal credibility of their sources. We also analyze the rule regarding character evidence and evidence of disposition as brakes on inferences based on generalizations which are constructed in the dominant stories of communities.

We define the Narrative Fallacy as an erroneous heuristic, through which fact finders, attempting to use narratives in order to make sense of insufficient information, mistakenly choose the wrong narrative and so end up distorting the evidence presented.

The paper situates the Narrative Fallacy alongside, but independent of, the intuitive statistical judgment fallacies defined and demonstrated in the research of Kahneman, Tversky, and other scholars.

Keywords: Narrative Fallacy, Hegemonic, admissibility, relative plausibility, prejudice
Their definition is exactly as I have learned it.

ETA, and I'm doing this on vacation in Lake City, Florida for the Bicycle Safari - rained out today. If I wanted to ride in this soggy crap then I'd stay home in Wisconsin and enjoy the snow.
 
Last edited:
Top