Betz’s Theory of Dialectical Structures versus Thagard’s Theory of Explanatory Coherence: Examining a Controversial Acquittal

Document Type : Original Article

Author

A faculty member of Department of Mangement,, Science and Technology at Amirkabir University of Technologyَ

Abstract

O.J. Simpson’s acquittal on the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole, was so controversial that some philosophers delved deeply into it. Identifying the relevant hypotheses and the evidence at the trial, Thagard (2003) argues that, within his theory of explanatory coherence, emotional biases best explain the jury’s decision. So, the acquittal is not justified by the relevant hypotheses, the evidence, and the explanatory relations between them alone. On the other hand, Amaya believes that her identification of the relevant hypotheses and the evidence, with some modifications in Thagard’s theory, would lead to an outcome different from that of Thagard. The current study investigates Amaya’s and Thagard’s assessment of O.J. Simpson’s acquittal within Betz’s theory of dialectical structures. Firstly, it will be shown that the acquittal not only is justified in terms of Amaya’s identification but also concerning Thagard’s identification. Secondly, I explain why despite the difference between the two identifications, the innocence hypothesis is ultimately favored over its rivals either way. Finally, it will be argued that Thagrad’s theory, unlike Betz’s theory, faces two problems, i.e. ambiguity and circularity. Hence, the evaluation within Betz’s theory is preferred to Thagrad’s evaluation.

Keywords

Main Subjects



Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 14 July 2024
  • Receive Date: 03 June 2024
  • Revise Date: 10 July 2024
  • Accept Date: 14 July 2024