Jurors' opinions and beliefs are destined to evolve as the trial goes on. New information and evidence integrate and corroborate the cognizance of the Court, but other testimonies might cause conflicts. In this case, it seems natural that the acquisition of the new evidence should be accompanied by a reduction of the credibility of the conflicting pieces of knowledge. If the juror's corpus of evidence is not a flat set of facts but contains rules, finding such conflicts and determining all the sentences involved in the contradictions can be hard. In dealing with these ``changes of mind'' we heavily relies on symbolic logic, since as much as it contributed to the history of ``thinking'', logic could as well solve the problem of ``thinking over''. A.I. reserchers call "belief revision" this cognitive process.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.