Classical logic and probability theory produce in law the
troublesome paradox of aggregation of claims: On the
other hand, logic seems to tell us that the aggregated
likelihood of alternative claims elevates in response to
probability's rules; thus, if the plaintiff almost proves
claim A and almost proves an alternative but independent
claim B, then the plaintiff should win one. On the other
hand, because the law requires each claim to meet the
standard of proof, and thus refuses to apply the proof
standard to the aggregation, the plaintiff loses in
actuality; legal scholars despair in consequences-
including Ariel Porat and Eric Posner in their new article
Aggregation and Law.
Fuzzy Logic, however, eradicates the paradox, by
showing that the claims' aggregate likelihood equals the
most likely claim's likelihood. The law is correct in
applying this approach.
Clermont, Kevin M.
"Aggregation of Probabilities and Illogic,"
Georgia Law Review: Vol. 47:
1, Article 5.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol47/iss1/5