Conclusion

This book has proceeded in five steps that establish these points: (1) The very common sort of uncertainty called epistemic, as opposed to aleatory, requires a special kind of analysis. (2) As many scholars have recognized already, traditional probability systems are incapable of accounting for epistemic uncertainty. (3) Among the numerous systems created to cure traditional probability’s shortcomings and handle epistemic uncertainty, multivalent logic is a completely valid and highly developed system, and it becomes especially evocative for legal factfinding when expressed in the image of belief functions. (4) The resultant system of multivalent beliefs makes great sense in explaining current legal practices both for processing evidence by inference and aggregation and also for evaluating proof through the burdens and standards of proof. (5) The application of multivalent beliefs to legal factfinding is generalizable to all areas of inquiry that involve persistent epistemic uncertainty.