On the Incoherent Use of Evidence: Why Subjective Bayesian Evidence is Not Held Probative.

Key Points

• This research explores why Bayesian evidence is often not considered probative in legal and auditing contexts.
• Analyzes historical acceptance of classical evidence in courts and audits.
• Reviews arguments supporting the Bayesian framework from prior auditing research.
• Discusses cost implications and representation issues in audit sampling.
• Highlights the insufficiency of quantitative evidence in certain contexts.
• Illustrates costs associated with adopting Bayesian methods in legal and auditing practices.