The paper critiques the reliance on classical evidence in courts and audit, suggesting needed evaluation of Bayesian methods.
Presents the reasons why the courts and auditors have accepted the classical approach rather than the Bayesian approach to evidence. David J. Johnstone's reasons for adopting the Bayesian framework; Arguments from previous auditing research; Fair representation of audit sampling; Insufficiency of quantitative evidence; Costs of the Bayesian approach to evidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John T. Sennetti (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: