Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
Self-test: what do the following symbols in Figure 7.25, below, tell us? How many symbols are there? Figure 7.25: self-test re: symbols The analysis of the chart The last stage is analysis, as the chart is only the means to the ends! As the full chart is considered links between propositions and evidence can be more clearly seen. The point of the chart is the juxtapositioning of the evidence, facts, assertions, etc in a way allowing simultaneous viewing so that they ultimately lead to a single finally believed outcome. The process of reaching the outcome is the argument. The outcome is the conclusion of the argument. Wigmore had many symbols denoting explanation, weak and strong inferences, the movement from doubt to belief, unsupported and supported inferences. He had symbols denoting object as opposed to person testimony, symbols for denials, rival assertions, and for generalisations, etc. His charts were extremely complicated matters taking many hours to construct, which is probably why his methods were not widely taken on board in American law schools, although he himself used the method in his teaching for 40 years. In addition whilst the complex symbolic networks that he set up appeal to some students, many are perhaps fearful or completely alienated by what appear to be complex mathematical structures. When Wigmore first set out his chart method in 1913 he said that it was not the symbols themselves that were important but the simultaneous juxtaposition of facts. Therefore the person constructing a chart could use their own symbols. Anderson and Twining did just that and made some changes to the charting method (that is, they modified it) for teaching. It is a good modification and is discussed below. 7.10.2 Anderson and Twining’s modification of the Wigmore Chart Method In an excellent book, Analysis of Evidence (1991), Anderson and Twining take the time to discuss the uses and limits of a Wigmore chart as a tool of legal education. They also note its use in other areas that require investigative tools. They recount an interesting story that demonstrates the far reaching applications of the method that Wigmore devised. They record David Schum presenting Wigmore’s Chart method without revealing its source to a group of computer analysts in the 1980s. When he asked them to predict when the system was invented the earliest date given was 1970! The analysts said the sophisticated inference networks had not been developed prior to the 1970s. In the 1990s David Schum and others have
DOI link for Self-test: what do the following symbols in Figure 7.25, below, tell us? How many symbols are there? Figure 7.25: self-test re: symbols The analysis of the chart The last stage is analysis, as the chart is only the means to the ends! As the full chart is considered links between propositions and evidence can be more clearly seen. The point of the chart is the juxtapositioning of the evidence, facts, assertions, etc in a way allowing simultaneous viewing so that they ultimately lead to a single finally believed outcome. The process of reaching the outcome is the argument. The outcome is the conclusion of the argument. Wigmore had many symbols denoting explanation, weak and strong inferences, the movement from doubt to belief, unsupported and supported inferences. He had symbols denoting object as opposed to person testimony, symbols for denials, rival assertions, and for generalisations, etc. His charts were extremely complicated matters taking many hours to construct, which is probably why his methods were not widely taken on board in American law schools, although he himself used the method in his teaching for 40 years. In addition whilst the complex symbolic networks that he set up appeal to some students, many are perhaps fearful or completely alienated by what appear to be complex mathematical structures. When Wigmore first set out his chart method in 1913 he said that it was not the symbols themselves that were important but the simultaneous juxtaposition of facts. Therefore the person constructing a chart could use their own symbols. Anderson and Twining did just that and made some changes to the charting method (that is, they modified it) for teaching. It is a good modification and is discussed below. 7.10.2 Anderson and Twining’s modification of the Wigmore Chart Method In an excellent book, Analysis of Evidence (1991), Anderson and Twining take the time to discuss the uses and limits of a Wigmore chart as a tool of legal education. They also note its use in other areas that require investigative tools. They recount an interesting story that demonstrates the far reaching applications of the method that Wigmore devised. They record David Schum presenting Wigmore’s Chart method without revealing its source to a group of computer analysts in the 1980s. When he asked them to predict when the system was invented the earliest date given was 1970! The analysts said the sophisticated inference networks had not been developed prior to the 1970s. In the 1990s David Schum and others have
Self-test: what do the following symbols in Figure 7.25, below, tell us? How many symbols are there? Figure 7.25: self-test re: symbols The analysis of the chart The last stage is analysis, as the chart is only the means to the ends! As the full chart is considered links between propositions and evidence can be more clearly seen. The point of the chart is the juxtapositioning of the evidence, facts, assertions, etc in a way allowing simultaneous viewing so that they ultimately lead to a single finally believed outcome. The process of reaching the outcome is the argument. The outcome is the conclusion of the argument. Wigmore had many symbols denoting explanation, weak and strong inferences, the movement from doubt to belief, unsupported and supported inferences. He had symbols denoting object as opposed to person testimony, symbols for denials, rival assertions, and for generalisations, etc. His charts were extremely complicated matters taking many hours to construct, which is probably why his methods were not widely taken on board in American law schools, although he himself used the method in his teaching for 40 years. In addition whilst the complex symbolic networks that he set up appeal to some students, many are perhaps fearful or completely alienated by what appear to be complex mathematical structures. When Wigmore first set out his chart method in 1913 he said that it was not the symbols themselves that were important but the simultaneous juxtaposition of facts. Therefore the person constructing a chart could use their own symbols. Anderson and Twining did just that and made some changes to the charting method (that is, they modified it) for teaching. It is a good modification and is discussed below. 7.10.2 Anderson and Twining’s modification of the Wigmore Chart Method In an excellent book, Analysis of Evidence (1991), Anderson and Twining take the time to discuss the uses and limits of a Wigmore chart as a tool of legal education. They also note its use in other areas that require investigative tools. They recount an interesting story that demonstrates the far reaching applications of the method that Wigmore devised. They record David Schum presenting Wigmore’s Chart method without revealing its source to a group of computer analysts in the 1980s. When he asked them to predict when the system was invented the earliest date given was 1970! The analysts said the sophisticated inference networks had not been developed prior to the 1970s. In the 1990s David Schum and others have
ABSTRACT
Self-test: what do the following symbols in Figure 7.25, below, tell us? How many symbols are there? Figure 7.25: self-test re: symbols
The analysis of the chart
The last stage is analysis, as the chart is only the means to the ends! As the full chart is considered links between propositions and evidence can be more clearly seen. The point of the chart is the juxtapositioning of the evidence, facts, assertions, etc in a way allowing simultaneous viewing so that they ultimately lead to a single finally believed outcome. The process of reaching the outcome is the argument. The outcome is the conclusion of the argument.
