Statistical Evidence, The Proof Paradox, and Individualized Evidence

The proof paradox has been a puzzling debate among philosophers: is generic statistical evidence enough in court for a conviction? This paper discusses the proof paradox and attempts to explain it away. It hypothesizes that statistical evidence does a poor job at representing the individual and therefore should not be used. The paper is written through many hypothetical examples, and credible research, including historical court cases. The research indicated that generic statistical evidence is indeed not sufficient evidence and often poorly represents an individual, stating that individualized evidence should be used in its place.