Legal reasoning yields probability rather than absolute mathematical truths

Evidence

In law there are no absolute truths like those established in mathematics. Lacking absolute truths, logical propositions merely express that which is likely to be true or false. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 242

Categorization

• DEFINE: XREF contrasts legal reasoning with formal logic
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 242
• XREF: connects to: Judicial rules should not be applied to dryly logical extremes — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 144; Permissible jury inferences require a logical probability connecting basic facts to ultimate facts — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 217; Inductive legal generalization produces workable probabilities rather than absolute truths. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 339 (+21 more)

Library Connections

• Inductive legal generalization produces workable probabilities rather than absolute truths. #expands (0.95) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 339