Aggregation of Probabilities and Illogic

Classical logic and probability theory produce in law thetroublesome paradox of aggregation of claims: On theother hand, logic seems to tell us that the aggregatedlikelihood of alternative claims elevates in response toprobability's rules; thus, if the plaintiff almost provesclaim A and almost proves an alternative but independentclaim B, then the plaintiff should win one. On the otherhand, because the law requires each claim to meet thestandard of proof, and thus refuses to apply the proofstandard to the aggregation, the plaintiff loses inactuality; legal scholars despair in consequences-including Ariel Porat and Eric Posner in their new articleAggregation and Law.Fuzzy Logic, however, eradicates the paradox, byshowing that the claims' aggregate likelihood equals themost likely claim's likelihood. The law is correct inapplying this approach.