A recursive definition of evidential reasoning

Abstract

The statement that evidential reasoning is a chain of reasoning is almost common place. However, this statement is not accompanied by complementary theses that specify the links in the chain. Consequently, this statement remains without justification. In my opinion, the only way to present evidential reasoning as a chain of reasoning is through a recursive definition, which defines the notion of sentence that, according to the law, can belong to evidential reasoning. The main goal of this paper is to present a definition, which will allow us to distinguish between the sentences that, according to the law, can belong to evidential reasoning as initial premises and those that, according to the law, can belong to evidential reasoning as conclusions