Abstract

This paper focuses on the role played by the so-called fallacy of conditional transposition. It is really any of several fallacies of statistical reasoning often found in legal arguments. The paper illustrates the difficulties that context-dependence poses for overcoming the fallacy. To avoid fallacious reasoning about probabilities in criminal trials it is necessary to introduce an argument-operational approach; and a dialectic trial phase with conjectural argumentation is needed to reach a judgment beyond any reasonable doubt.