What question did this study set out to answer?

This research explores why Bayesian evidence is often not considered probative in legal and auditing contexts.

synapse

⌘+K

synapse

⌘+K

June 15, 2026

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.

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay