In legal theory, the term "legal basis" is used.

– Kharkiv: Osnovy, K .: Znannia, 1998. – P. 108 – 202. Getmanova AD Textbook of logic. – Moscow: CheRo, 2000 – P. 110 – 164. Voishvillo EK, Degtyarev MG Logic. – Moscow: Vlados, 2001 – P. 333 – 406.

10/23/2011

Proof as a collective form of thinking. Abstract

The concept of proof (proof), its structure. Types and varieties of evidence. Rules of proof. The concept of refutation. Types of refutation. Dispute and discussion as types of argumentation. Logical errors in the evidence, pitfalls in the dispute and ways to overcome them. Innovative management, the role of logical thinking in it

1. The concept of evidence, its structure

Obtaining indirect, derived knowledge is not only in the form of inference. Another form of carrying out this process in thinking is proof (proof). It differs qualitatively in complexity compared to the concept, judgment and inference – and therefore is considered separately from them.

Proof (proof) – a form of thinking that justifies the correctness of judgments, the truth of which is not obvious by turning them into judgments directly obvious. In other words, proof is a form of thinking that reveals the truth of some judgments and the falsity of others.

The linguistic form of expression of proof is more or less complex linguistic constructions, which consists of a set of sentences that are in some way related to each other and express a logical chain of inferences. Proof is based on inference, but is not reduced to it, is not a simple arithmetic sum of inferences. Just as judgment represents itself in the form of a connection of concepts, and inferences in the form of a connection of judgments, so proof represents a connection of inferences (and, accordingly, judgments and concepts).

The structure of the proof includes three components.

1. Thesis – a judgment, the truth of which must be proven. Theses can be a variety of judgments, if they are not obvious and need to be proved. In the sciences, these are various provisions (theorems – in geometry, facts and circumstances – in legal practice), in everyday practice – certain beliefs. A kind of thesis is a hypothesis (from the Greek hypothesis – justification, assumption, conjecture) – not a true or false judgment, but a more or less probable assumption that can become the subject of proof, and eventually gain the status of a scientific position or theory (if the proof is successful).

At one time, M. Lomonosov noted that hypotheses are the only way in which prominent people have reached the discovery of the most important truths of science. Reflecting on the essence of the hypothesis, one of the functions of proof becomes more accurate – to be a necessary tool in the development of theory or its development. Here we can recall the hypothesis of the atomistic construction of matter of Democritus, Titus Lucretius Kara and others, which later formed the basis of elementary physics; I. Kant’s hypothesis about the origin of the solar system from the proto-nebula, which played a major role in establishing a dialectical view of nature.

A kind of hypothesis in legal practice is the version (from the Latin versio – modification, rotation) – the conjecture or assumption of a lawyer about the presence or absence of events, facts, nature and nature of actions and so on.

2. Arguments – the basic parameters of proof, judgments, which prove the thesis. This is the position from which the truth or falsity of the thesis is derived. The role of arguments in proof is extremely large. In everyday practice, they are, in fact, called evidence. In legal theory, the term "legal basis" is used. There are the following types of arguments: reliable facts (most often), definitions, axioms and postulates.

It is the facts in the evidence that have considerable coercive force and, as a rule, convince the most thoroughly – I. Pavlov called them "the air of a scientist". Under the facts, say, legal, means the circumstances that serve as the basis for the emergence or termination of a specific legal relationship.

In addition to facts, another universal type of argument is definition. For example, in geometry, the definition of "point", "line", "plane", etc. is fundamental to further proofs. A similar role of this type of argument in other sciences, in particular, in the humanities – they reveal the general and specific qualities of the subject of proof.

3. Form of proof (argumentation). The presence of the thesis and arguments does not mean that the proof is available. For example, if we have a bunch of car parts, it does not mean that they are already a finished car. In order for the proof to be complete, it is necessary to establish a logical connection between theses and arguments, which is, in fact, argumentation. That is, you need a consistent chain between the thesis, the system of arguments and the conclusion. For this logical chain to be consistent, a person needs to know and follow the laws of logic.

2. Types and varieties of evidence. Rules of proof

The division of proof into types is a certain conditionality – they can pass into each other. However, there are the following types of evidence:

direct proof – the truth of the thesis is proved directly from the truth of the arguments. A simple example: "The refrigerator is working, because when connected to the network in its chamber, the air temperature decreases according to the parameters set by the manufacturer"; "Anatoly Karpov is an outstanding chess player in the world because he has won more than 150 tournaments and matches."

indirect proof – the truth of the thesis is derived from some other judgments. It differs in that the arguments in it substantiate the truth of thesis indirectly through the substantiation of the falsity of another, opposite thesis.

Indirect proof has two varieties: apogogic proof (from the opposite) and proof by division. The apogogic is that first it is accepted to prove thesis that contradicts the original. Then this thesis is reduced to the absurd, or to a contradiction with certain truths – then from the falsity of such a thesis follows the truth of the original. Indirect proof by the method of division is that of the several possible theses by the method of exclusion is one.

For example, a lawyer knows that this crime was committed by either Ivanov, Petrov, or, say, Bender-Zadunaisky (and no one else). Therefore, the task of the lawyer is to gradually cut off the false theses to establish one person guilty of this crime.

Rules of proof.

Rules these

The thesis is the central point of proof and the requirements are presented to it first of all.

The thesis can be proved only when it is true. In the proof the truth of the thesis is not born, but only established, revealed. In other words, it would be wrong to take a false thesis, the falsity of which is known, and try to prove it (this is called sophistry).

The thesis must be clearly defined – subjects, predicates, modality, quantifiers of the thesis as judgments must be clear and unambiguous.

The thesis must remain the same throughout the proof.

Argument rules

Arguments must be true. This rule is directly related to rule No. 1. The truth of the parcels is necessary, although not a sufficient condition for obtaining a true inference.

The truth of the arguments must be (if necessary) substantiated regardless of the truth of thesis. This means that the arguments must have their own evidence.

Arguments should not be opposite to each other – simultaneous assertion or refutation is impossible by the laws of logic.

Each of the arguments must be necessary, and their combination is sufficient to substantiate the thesis. In other words, there should be nothing superfluous or omitted in the proof.

Rule on the form of proof (main rule):

8. The thesis must be logically necessary (according to the laws of logic) to agree with the arguments as a conclusion from the premises.

3. The concept of refutation. Types of refutation.

Rebuttal is, in fact, proof of the falsity of the thesis. There are the following types of refutations:

Proving the falsity of arguments; Proving the wrong form of argumentation (that the thesis does not follow from the arguments); Proving the truth of the antithesis (opposite to the original, thesis); Bringing to the absurd (proving that the consequences arising from this thesis contradict reality).

The search for truth, as we see, often takes place in a sharp conflict between thinking and erroneous judgments. Rebuttal can take various forms – according to its types.

4. Dispute and discussion as types of argumentation

An important requirement for argumentation is, of course, honesty, integrity and objectivity. In particular, it affects the willingness of people to abandon biased negative attitudes towards other people’s thoughts and sympathies with their own. Proof and refutation, which is conducted by people – the opponent and the proponent, is usually formed as a dialogue, which is called a dispute or discussion.

Dispute (dispute) and discussion – two close types of complex verbal argumentative process. They are divided according to the purpose and manner of holding. Depending on the purpose, disputes occur in particular for the sake of truth and for the sake of victory. The discussion is, in fact, a scientific dispute – in the process, scientific material is prepared in advance, which is submitted by the proponent and questioned by the opponent. The manner of discussion is (ideally) a high culture of behavior, impartiality and requires from the parties a high level of competence on the subject of the dispute.

5. Logical errors in the evidence, traps in the dispute

Errors in arguments

1. Falseness of bases (arguments) – the main mistake, which is that the arguments are not true, but false judgments that give or try to pretend to be true. A classic example of this error is the falsity of the arguments of Ptolemy, who believed the geocentric structure of the solar system to be correct because the sun allegedly revolved around the earth.

2. "Anticipation of arguments" – the thesis is based on unproven arguments that may be true and then the thesis may be true.

3. "False circle" – the thesis is proved by arguments, and the truth of the arguments is based on the same thesis. An example of this is the best narrative essay topics proof "The value of goods in the market is determined by the cost of labor, and the cost of labor should depend on the value of goods in the market."

Errors in argumentation

4. Imaginary following – a person combines incompatible arguments with the words "means" "follows" hence "" thus "" in the end we have "and so on.