The authors investigate to what extent an evaluation of legal evidence in terms of coherence (suggested by Thagard, Amaya, Van Koppen and others) is reconcilable with a probabilistic (Bayesian) approach to legal evidence. The article is written by one author (Dahlman) with a background in the bayesian approach to legal evidence, and one author (Mackor) with a background in scenario theory. The authors find common ground but partly diverge in their conclusions. Their findings give support to the claim (reductionism) that coherence can be translated into probability without loss. Dahlman therefore concludes that the probabilistic vocabulary is superior to the coherence vocabulary, since it is more precise. Mackor is more agnostic in her conclusions about reductionism. In Mackor's view, the findings of their joint investigation do not imply that the probabilistic approach is superior to the coherentist approach.

中文翻译：

---

法律证据的连贯性和概率

作者调查了在连贯性方面对法律证据的评估（由 Thagard、Amaya、Van Koppen 和其他人提出）与概率（贝叶斯）法律证据方法相一致的程度。这篇文章是由一位具有贝叶斯法律证据方法背景的作者 (Dahlman) 和一位具有情景理论背景的作者 (Mackor) 撰写的。作者找到了共同点，但他们的结论部分存在分歧。他们的发现支持了这样的主张（还原论），即连贯性可以在没有损失的情况下转化为概率。Dahlman 因此得出结论，概率词汇优于连贯词汇，因为它更精确。Mackor 在她关于还原论的结论中更加不可知。在麦可看来，