Logical Foundations of the Theory of Argumentation
Discipline test: logic
1. The concept of proof
Cognition of individual objects, their properties begins with sensory forms (sensations and perceptions). We see that this house has not yet been completed, we feel the taste of bitter medicine, and so on. The truths revealed by these forms are not subject to special proof, they are obvious. However, in many cases, for example, at a lecture, in an essay, in a scientific work, in a report, during a debate, at court hearings, at the defense of a dissertation and in many others, we have to prove, substantiate our judgments.
Evidence is an important quality of correct thinking. Evidence is related to argumentation, but they are not identical.
Argumentation - a method of reasoning, including proof and refutation, in the process of which a conviction is created in the truth of the thesis and the falsity of the antithesis, both among the prover himself and among the opponents; the expediency of accepting the thesis is substantiated in order to develop an active life position and implement certain action programs arising from the position being proved. The concept of "argumentation" is richer in content than the concept of "proof": the purpose of proof is to establish the truth of the thesis, and the purpose of argumentation is also to substantiate the expediency of accepting this thesis, showing its importance in a given life situation, etc. P. In the theory of argumentation, “argument” is also understood more broadly than in the theory of proof, because the first one means not only arguments confirming the truth of the thesis, but also arguments justifying the expediency of its adoption, demonstrating its advantages over others. mi similar statements (sentences). Arguments in the process of argumentation are much more diverse than in the process of proof.
The form of the argumentation and the form of the proof also do not completely coincide. The first, like the last, includes various types of inferences (deductive, inductive, by analogy) or their chain, but, in addition, combining proof and refutation, provides justification. The form of argumentation most often has the character of a dialogue, because the argumentator not only proves his thesis, but also refutes the opponent’s antithesis, convincing him and / or the audience that is a witness to the discussion of the correctness of his thesis, seeks to make them like-minded people.
Dialogue as the most reasoned form of conversation came to us from antiquity (for example, Ancient Greece is the birthplace of Plato's dialogues, dispute techniques in the form of questions and answers of Socrates, etc.). But dialogue is an external form of argumentation: the opponent can only be thought (which is especially evident in written argumentation). Internal
the form of argumentation is a chain of evidence and refutation of the argumentative in the process of proving the thesis and implementing the conviction. In the process of argumentation, the development of beliefs in an interlocutor or audience is often associated with their persuasion. Therefore, the role of rhetoric in its traditional understanding as the art of eloquence is great in argumentation. In this sense, Aristotle's Rhetoric is still of interest, in which the science of eloquence is seen as a theory and practice of persuasion in the process of proving the truth of a thesis. “The Word is a great ruler, who, having a very small and completely imperceptible body, does wonderful things. For it can expel fear, and destroy sadness, and inspire joy, and awaken compassion, ”wrote the ancient Greek scholar Gorgias about the art of argumentation. There was no period in history when people did not argue.
Without the argumentation of statements, intellectual communication is impossible, because it is a necessary tool for knowing the truth.
The theory of proof and refutation is in modern conditions a means of forming scientifically based beliefs. In science, scientists have to prove a variety of judgments, for example, judgments about what existed before our era, what period objects found during archaeological excavations belong to, about the atmosphere of the planets of the solar system, about the stars and galaxies of the Universe, theorems of mathematics, judgments about directions the development of electronic technology, the possibility of long-term weather forecasts, the mysteries of the oceans and space. All these judgments must be scientifically substantiated.
Proof is a set of logical methods for substantiating the truth of a thesis. Proof is connected with belief, but not identical to it: evidence must be based on the data of science and socio-historical practice, while beliefs can be based, for example, on religious faith, on prejudices, on people's ignorance of economic issues and politics, on the appearance of evidence, based on various kinds of sophisms. Therefore to convince - still, does not mean to prove.
1.2 The structure of the evidence: thesis, arguments, demonstration
A thesis is a proposition, the truth of which must be proved. Arguments are those true judgments that are used to prove the thesis. The form of proof, or demonstration, is the method of logical connection between the thesis and arguments.
Let us give an example of the proof. Paul S. Bragg stated the following thesis: “Health cannot be bought, it can only be earned by one's own constant efforts.” He substantiates this thesis as follows: “Only persistent and persistent work on oneself will allow everyone to make themselves an energetic long-liver, enjoying endless health. I have earned my own health with my life. I am healthy 365 days a year, I do not have any pain, fatigue, decrepitude of the body. And you can achieve the same results!”
1.3 Types of arguments
There are several types of arguments:
1. Certified single facts. Such arguments include the so-called factual material, i.e. statistical data on the population, the territory of the state, the implementation of the plan, the number of weapons, testimonies, signatures on documents, scientific data, scientific facts. The role of facts in substantiating the propositions put forward, including scientific ones, is great.
Facts are the air of a scientist. Without them, you will never be able to fly. Without them, your "theories" are empty attempts.
2. Definitions as proof arguments. Definitions of concepts are usually given in every science. The definition rules and types of definitions of concepts were discussed in the topic “Concept”, and numerous examples of definitions of concepts of various sciences were given there: mathematics, chemistry, biology, geography, etc.
3. Axioms. In mathematics, mechanics, theoretical physics, mathematical logic and other sciences, in addition to definitions, axioms are introduced. Axi-ohms are judgments that are accepted as arguments without proof.
4. Previously proven laws of science and theorems as proof arguments. Previously proven laws of physics, chemistry, biology and other sciences, theorems of mathematics (both classical and constructive) can serve as proof arguments. Legal laws are arguments in the course of forensic evidence.
In the course of proving a thesis, not one, but several of the listed types of arguments can be used.
2. Direct and indirect (indirect) evidence
Evidence in form is divided into direct and indirect (indirect). Direct evidence goes from consideration of arguments to proof of the thesis, i.e. the truth of the thesis is directly substantiated by arguments. The scheme of this proof is as follows: from the given arguments (a, b, c, ...) the thesis q to be proved necessarily follows. This type of evidence is carried out in judicial practice, in science, in polemics, in the writings of schoolchildren, when presenting material by a teacher, etc.
Direct evidence is widely used in statistical reports, in various kinds of documents, in decisions, in fiction and other literature.
The teacher in the lesson, with direct proof of the thesis “The people are the creator of history”, shows, firstly, that the people are the creator of material wealth, and secondly, it substantiates the huge role of the masses in politics, explains how in the modern era the people lead active struggle for peace and democracy, thirdly, reveals its great role in the creation of spiritual culture.
In the modern fashion magazine "Burda", the thesis "Envy is the root of all evil" is substantiated with the help of direct evidence by the following arguments: "Envy not only poisons people's everyday life, but can also lead to more serious consequences, therefore, along with jealousy, malice and hatred is undoubtedly one of the worst character traits.
Creeping up imperceptibly, envy hurts painfully and deeply. A person is envious of the well-being of others, tormented by the consciousness that someone is more fortunate.
Indirect (indirect) evidence is evidence in which the truth of the put forward thesis is substantiated by proving the falsity of the antithesis. If the thesis is denoted by the letter a, then its negation (a) will be the antithesis, i.e. a statement that contradicts the thesis.
Apagogical indirect proof (or proof “from the contrary”) is carried out by establishing the falsity of a judgment that contradicts the thesis. This method is often used in mathematics.
Let a be the thesis or theorem to be proved. We assume by contradiction that a is false, i.e. not-a (or a) is true. From assumption a we deduce consequences that contradict reality or previously proven theorems. We have a V a, while a is false, which means that its negation is true, i.e. a, which, according to the law of two-valued classical logic (a > a), gives a. Hence, a is true, which was to be proved.
It should be noted that in constructive logic the formula a > a is not derivable, therefore, in this logic and in constructive mathematics it cannot be used in proofs. The law of the excluded third is also “rejected” here (it is not a derivable formula), so circumstantial evidence does not apply here. There are a lot of examples of proof "by contradiction" in the school mathematics course. So, for example, the theorem is proved that from a point lying outside a straight line, only one perpendicular can be dropped to this straight line. The following theorem is also proved by the “contradiction” method: “If two lines are perpendicular to the same plane, then they are parallel.” The proof of this theorem begins directly with the words: “Assume the opposite, i.e. that lines AB and CD are not parallel.
Separative proof (by the method of elimination). An antithesis is one of the members of a disjunctive judgment, in which all possible alternatives must be listed, for example:
Either A, or B, or C could have committed the crime.
It is proved that neither A nor B committed the crime.
The crime was committed by S.
The truth of the thesis is established by consistently proving the falsity of all members of the disjunctive judgment, except for one.
Here the structure of the negative-affirming mode of the divisive-categorical syllogism is applied. The conclusion will be true if all possible cases (alternatives) are provided for in the separating judgment, i.e. if it is a closed (complete) disjunctive proposition:
As noted earlier, in this mode, the union "or" can be used both as a strict disjunction () and as a non-strict disjunction (v), so the scheme also corresponds to it:
3. The concept of refutation
Refutation is a logical operation of establishing the falsity or unfoundedness of a previously put forward thesis.
The refutation must show that: 1) the proof itself (arguments or demonstration) is incorrectly constructed; 2) the thesis put forward is false or not proven.
The proposition that needs to be refuted is called the refutation thesis. The judgments by which the thesis is refuted are called refutation arguments.
There are three methods of refutation: I) refutation of the thesis (direct and indirect); ii) criticism of arguments; III) revealing the inconsistency of the demonstration.
3.1 Refutation of the thesis
The refutation of the thesis is carried out using the following three methods (the first is a direct method, the second and third are indirect methods).
1. Refutation by facts is the surest and most successful way of refutation. Earlier it was said about the role of the selection of facts, about the method of operating with them; all this must be taken into account in the process of refutation by facts that contradict the thesis. Real events, phenomena, statistical data that contradict the thesis should be given, i.e. an op-provable judgment. For example, in order to refute the thesis “Organic life is possible on Venus”, it is enough to cite the following data: the temperature on the surface of Venus is 470-480 ° C, and the pressure is 95-97 atmospheres. These data indicate that life on Venus is impossible.
2. The falsity (or inconsistency) of the consequences arising from the thesis is established. It is proved that this thesis leads to consequences that contradict the truth. This technique is called "reduction to the absurd" (reductio ad absurdum). They act like this: the refuted thesis is temporarily recognized as true, but then such consequences are derived from it that contradict the truth.
In classical two-valued logic (as already noted), the method of "reduction to absurdity" is expressed in the form of a formula:
where F is a contradiction or false.
In a more general form, the principle of "reduction (reduction) to absurdity" is expressed by the following formula: (a> b)> ((a>)> a).
3. Refutation of the thesis through proof of the antithesis. In relation to the refuted thesis (judgment a), a judgment contradicting it (i.e. not-a) is put forward, and the judgment not-a (antithesis) is proved. If the antithesis is true, then the thesis is false, and the third is not given by the law of the excluded middle.
For example, it is necessary to refute the widespread thesis “All dogs bark” (Proposition A, generally affirmative). For judgment A, the contradictory judgment will be O - privately negative: "Some dogs don't bark." To prove the latter, it is enough to give a few examples, or at least one example: "Dogs among the pygmies never bark." So, the proposition O is proved. By virtue of the law of the excluded middle, if O is true, then A is false. Therefore, the thesis is refuted.
3.2 Criticism of the arguments
The arguments that were put forward by the opponent in support of his thesis are criticized. The falsity or inconsistency of these arguments is proved.
The falsity of the arguments does not mean the falsity of the thesis: the thesis can remain true.
It is impossible to reliably conclude from the denial of the foundation to the denial of the consequence, but it is enough to show that the thesis has not been proven. Sometimes it happens that the thesis is true, but a person cannot find true arguments to prove it. It also happens that a person is not guilty, but does not have sufficient arguments to prove it. In the course of the refutation of the arguments, these cases should be kept in mind.
3.3 Demonstration failure
This mode of refutation consists in what is shown. proof errors. The most common mistake is that the truth of the refuted thesis does not follow, does not follow from the arguments given in support of the thesis. The proof can be incorrectly constructed if any rule of deductive reasoning is violated or a “hasty generalization” is made, i.e. incorrect inference from the truth of proposition I to the truth of proposition A (similarly, from the truth of proposition O to the truth of proposition E).
But having discovered errors in the course of the demonstration, we refute its course, but do not refute the thesis itself. The task of proving the truth of the thesis lies with the one who put it forward.
Often, all of the listed methods of refuting a thesis, arguments, and evidence are not used in isolation, but in combination with each other.
4. Rules of evidence-based reasoning. Logical fallacies found in proofs and rebuttals
If at least one of the rules listed below is violated, then errors in the thesis being proved, errors in relation to the arguments and errors in the form of proof can occur.
4.1 Rules in relation to the thesis
1. The thesis should be logically defined, clear and precise. Sometimes people in their speech, written statement, scientific article, report, lecture cannot clearly, clearly, unambiguously formulate the thesis. So, a speaker at a meeting cannot clearly formulate the main provisions of his speech and, therefore, argue them well in front of the audience. And the listeners are perplexed why he spoke in the debate and what he wanted to prove to them.
2. The thesis must remain identical, i.e. one and the same, throughout the entire proof or refutation. Violation of this rule leads to a logical error - "substitution of the thesis".
4.2 Errors regarding the thesis being proved
l. "Substitution of thesis". The thesis must be clearly formulated and remain the same throughout the entire proof or refutation - this is how the rules say in relation to the thesis. If they are violated, an error occurs, called "substitution of the thesis." Its essence is that one thesis is deliberately or unintentionally replaced by another and this new thesis begins to be proved or refuted. This often happens during a dispute, discussion, when the opponent's thesis is first simplified or expanded on its content, and then they begin to criticize. Then the one who is being criticized declares that the opponent “distorts” his thoughts (or words), ascribes to him something that he did not say. This situation is very common, it occurs when defending dissertations, and when discussing published scientific papers, and at various meetings and meetings, and when editing scientific and literary articles.
Here there is a violation of the law of identity, since non-identical theses are trying to identify, which leads to a logical error.
2. "Argument to man." The mistake consists in substituting the proof of the thesis itself with references to the personal qualities of the one who put forward this thesis. For example, instead of proving the value and novelty of a dissertation work, they say that the dissertation candidate is an honored person, he worked hard on his dissertation, and so on. A conversation between a class teacher and a teacher, for example, of the Russian language, about the assessment given to a student, sometimes comes down not to the argument that this student deserved this assessment with his knowledge, but to references to the student’s personal qualities: he is conscientious in his studies, he was sick a lot in this quarter, he succeeds in all other subjects, etc.
In scientific works, sometimes, instead of a specific analysis of the material, the study of modern scientific data and the results of practice, quotations from the statements of prominent scientists, prominent figures are cited as confirmation, and this is limited, believing that one reference to authority is enough. Moreover, quotes can be taken out of context and sometimes arbitrarily interpreted. "Argument to man" is often just a sophistry, and not an error made unintentionally.
A variation on "argument to the man" is the fallacy called "argument to the public," which consists in trying to influence people's feelings to believe that a thesis put forward is true, although it cannot be proved.
3. "Transition to another kind." There are two types of this error:
a) “he who proves too much proves nothing”; b) "he who proves too little proves nothing."
In the first case, an error occurs when, instead of one true thesis, they try to prove another, stronger thesis, and in this case the second thesis may turn out to be false. If a implies b, but b does not imply a, then thesis a is stronger than thesis b. For example, if instead of proving that this person did not start a fight first, they begin to prove that he did not participate in the fight, then they will not be able to prove anything if this person really fought and witnesses saw it.
The error “he who proves too little proves nothing” arises when instead of the thesis a we prove the weaker thesis b. For example, if, trying to prove that this animal is a zebra, we prove that it is striped, then we will prove nothing, because the tiger is also a striped animal.
4.3 Argument Rules
1) The arguments given to prove the thesis must be true and not contradictory.
2) Arguments should be a sufficient basis for proving the thesis.
3) Arguments must be judgments, the truth of which is proven independently, regardless of the thesis.
4.4 Errors in the grounds (arguments) of the proof
1. The falsity of the grounds ("basic delusion"). As arguments, not true, but false judgments are taken, which give out or try to pass off as true. The error may be unintentional. For example, before Copernicus, scientists believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth and, based on this false argument, they built their theories. An error can also be deliberate (sophism) with the aim of confusing, misleading other people (for example, giving false testimony by witnesses or accused during a judicial investigation, incorrect identification of things or people, etc., from which then false conclusions are made).
2. "Anticipation of reasons." The arguments are not proven, but the thesis relies on them. Unproven arguments only anticipate, but do not prove the thesis.
3. "Vicious circle". The mistake is that the thesis is justified by arguments, and the arguments are justified by the same thesis. For example, K. Marx revealed this error in the arguments of D. Weston, one of the leaders of the British labor movement. Marx writes: “So we begin with the statement that the value of commodities is determined by the value of labour, and end with the statement that the value of labor is determined by the value of commodities. Thus, we truly revolve in a vicious circle and do not come to any conclusion.
4.5 Rule regarding the form of substantiation of the thesis (demonstration)
The thesis must be a conclusion logically following from the arguments according to the general rules of inference or obtained in accordance with the rules of circumstantial evidence.
4.6 Errors in the form of evidence
1. Imaginary following. If the thesis does not follow from the arguments given to support it, then an error occurs, called “does not follow”, “does not follow”. People sometimes, instead of correct proof, connect arguments with the thesis by means of the words “therefore”, “so”, “thus”, “we finally have”, etc., believing that they have established a logical connection between the arguments and the thesis. This logical error is often unconsciously made by someone who is not familiar with the rules of logic and relies only on his common sense and intuition. As a result, there is a verbal appearance of evidence.
2. From what was said with a condition to what was said unconditionally. An argument that is true only with regard to a certain time, relationship, measure, cannot be cited as unconditional, true in all cases. So, if coffee is useful in small doses (for raising blood pressure, for example), then in large doses it is harmful. Similarly, if arsenic is added to certain medicines in small doses, then in large doses it is a poison. Medications doctors should select for patients individually. Pedagogy requires an individual approach to students. Ethics determines the norms of people's behavior, and in different conditions they may vary somewhat (for example, truthfulness is a positive trait of a person, but if he gives out a secret to an enemy, then this will be a crime).
3. Violation of the rules of inference (deductive, inductive, by analogy):
a). Errors in deductive reasoning. For example, in a conditionally categorical inference, it is impossible to draw a conclusion from the statement of the consequence to the statement of the foundation. So, from the premises “If a number ends in 0, then it is divisible by 5” and “This is a number. is divisible by 5" does not lead to the output: "This number ends in 0". Errors in deductive reasoning have been covered in detail previously.
b). Errors in inductive reasoning. "Hasty generalization", for example, the statement that "all witnesses give biased testimony." Another mistake is “after this, therefore, because of this” (for example, the loss of a thing was discovered after being in the house of this person, which means he took it away).
in). Errors in reasoning by analogy. For example, African pygmies incorrectly infer by analogy between a stuffed elephant and a living elephant. Before hunting for an elephant, they arrange ritual dances, depicting this hunt, they pierce a stuffed elephant with spears, believing (by analogy) that hunting for a live elephant will be successful, i.e. that they will be able to pierce him with a spear.
5. The concept of sophistry and logical paradoxes
An unintentional mistake made by a person in thinking is called laralogism. Paralogisms are admitted by many people. A deliberate mistake in order to confuse your opponent and pass off a false judgment as true is called sophism. Sophists are people who try to pass off a lie as the truth through various tricks.
There are mathematical sophisms in mathematics. At the end of XIX - beginning of XX century. the book by V.I. Obreimov "Mathematical sophisms", which contains many sophisms. And a number of modern books contain interesting mathematical sophisms. For example, F.F. Nagibin formulates the following mathematical sophisms:
4) “All numbers are equal to each other”;
5) "Any number is equal to half of it";
6) “A negative number is equal to a positive one”;
7) "Any number is equal to zero";
8) “Two perpendiculars can be lowered from a point to a straight line”;
9) “A right angle is equal to an obtuse one”;
10) "Every circle has two centers";
11) "The lengths of all circles are equal" and many others.
2 = 5. It is required to find an error in the following reasoning. We have a numerical identity: 4: 4 \u003d 5: 5. Let's take out the common factor in each part of this identity. We get 4 (1: 1) = 5 (1: 1). The numbers in brackets are equal. Therefore 4=5, or 2
5 = 1. Wishing to prove that 5 = 1, we will argue as follows. From the numbers 5 and 1, we subtract the same number 3 separately. We get the numbers 2 and - 2. When squaring these numbers, we get equal numbers 4 and 4. So, the original numbers 5 and 1 must also be equal. Where is the error?
5.1 The concept of logical paradoxes
A paradox is a reasoning that proves both the truth and falsity of a certain judgment, or (in other words) that proves both this judgment and its negation. Paradoxes have been known since antiquity. Their examples are: “Heap”, “Bald”, “Catalogue of all normal directories”, “Mayor of the city”, “General and barber”, etc. Let's consider some of them.
The Heap Paradox. The difference between a heap and a non-heap is not one grain of sand. Suppose we have a pile (for example, sand). We begin to take one grain of sand from it each time, and the heap remains a heap. We continue this process. If 100 grains of sand is a heap, then 99 is also a heap, and so on. 10 grains of sand - a pile, 9 - a pile, ... 3 grains of sand - a pile, 2 grains of sand - a pile, 1 grain of sand - a pile. So, the essence of the paradox is that gradual quantitative changes (decrease by 1 grain of sand) do not lead to qualitative changes.
5.2 Paradoxes of set theory
In a letter to Gottlob Frege dated June 16, 1902, Bertrand Russell reported that he had discovered the paradox of the set of all normal sets (a normal set is a set that does not contain itself as an element).
Examples of such paradoxes (contradictions) are the "Catalogue of all normal directories", "Mayor of the city", "General and barber", etc.
The paradox called "City Mayor" is as follows: every city mayor lives either in his city or outside it. An order was issued to allocate one special city, where only mayors who did not live in their city would live. Where should the mayor of this special city live? a). If he wants to live in his city, then he cannot do this, since only mayors who do not live in their city live there, b). If he does not want to live in his own city, then, like all mayors who do not live in their cities, he must live in the allotted city "i.e. in his. So, he cannot live either in his city or outside it.
Thus, the logic includes the category of time, the category of change: one has to consider the changing volumes of concepts. And the consideration of volume in the process of its change is already an aspect of dialectical logic. The interpretation of the paradoxes of mathematical logic and set theory associated with the violation of the requirements of dialectical logic belongs to S.A. Yanovskaya. In the catalog example, a contradiction is avoided because the scope of the notion "a catalog of all normal catalogs" is taken for some definite, precisely fixed time, for example, June 20-Day 1998. There are other ways to avoid contradictions of this kind.
6. The art of discussion
The role of evidence in scientific knowledge and discussions is reduced to the selection of sufficient grounds (arguments) and to show that the proof thesis follows from them with logical necessity.
The rules for conducting a discussion can be shown by the example of a youth debate. The dispute allows you to consider, analyze problem situations, develop the ability to reasonably defend your knowledge, your beliefs.
Disputes can be planned in advance or arise impromptu (on a hike, after watching a movie, etc.). In the first case, you can read the literature in advance, prepare, in the second - an advantage in emotionality. It is very important to choose the topic of the dispute, it should sound sharp and problematic.
During the debate, 3-4 questions should be posed, but in such a way that it would be impossible to give unambiguous answers to them.
There are various types of dialogue: dispute, polemic, discussion, dispute, conversation, debate, swara, debate, etc. The art of arguing is called eristics (from the Greek - dispute), the section of logic that studies the methods of dispute is also called. In order for the discussion, the dispute to be fruitful, i.e. could achieve their goal, certain conditions must be met. A.L. Nikiforov recommends remembering the following conditions when conducting a dispute. First of all, there must be a subject of dispute - some problem, a topic to which the statements of the participants in the discussion relate. If there is no such topic, the dispute turns out to be pointless, degenerates into a meaningless conversation. Regarding the subject of the dispute, there must be a real opposition of the disputing parties, i.e. the parties must hold opposing beliefs regarding the subject matter of the dispute. If there is no real difference in positions, then the dispute degenerates into a conversation about words, i.e. opponents are talking about the same thing, but using different words, which creates the appearance of a discrepancy. Some common basis for the dispute is also needed, i.e. some principles, provisions, beliefs that are recognized by both sides! If there is not a single provision with which both parties would agree, then the dispute is impossible. Some knowledge about the subject of the dispute is required: it is pointless to enter into an argument about something about which you do not have the slightest idea. The conditions for a fruitful dispute also include the ability to be attentive to one’s opponent, the ability to listen and the desire to understand his reasoning, the willingness to admit one’s mistake and the correctness of the interlocutor. The dispute is not only a clash of opposing opinions, but also a struggle of characters. The techniques used in the dispute are divided into permissible and inadmissible (ie, loyal and disloyal). When opponents seek to establish the truth or reach a common agreement, they use only loyal methods. If one of the opponents resorts to unloyal methods, then this indicates that he is only interested in winning by any means. You should not argue with such a person. However, knowledge of disloyal arguing techniques is necessary: it helps people to expose their use in a particular dispute. Sometimes they are used unconsciously or in a temper, in such cases, an indication of the use of disloyal methods serves as an additional argument indicating the weakness of the opponent's position.
A.L. Nikiforov identifies the following loyal (permissible) methods of dispute, which are simple and not numerous. It is important to seize the initiative from the very beginning: offer your own wording of the subject of the dispute, a discussion plan, direct the course of the debate in the direction you need. In a dispute, it is important not to defend, but to attack. Anticipating the possible arguments of the opponent, you should express them yourself and immediately answer them. An important advantage in the dispute is received by the one who manages to place the burden of proof or refutation on the opponent. And if he has a poor command of the methods of proof, then he may become confused in his reasoning and will be forced to admit that he has been defeated. It is recommended to concentrate attention and actions on the weakest link in the opponent's argument, and not seek to refute all of its elements. Loyal techniques also include the use of the surprise effect: for example, the most important arguments can be saved until the end of the discussion. Having expressed them at the end, when the opponent has already exhausted his arguments, you can confuse him and win. Loyal methods also include the desire to take the last word in the discussion: summing up the dispute, you can present its results in a favorable light for you.
Incorrect, disloyal methods are used in those cases when there is no certainty in the truth of the defended position or even its falsity is realized, but nevertheless there is a desire to win the argument. To do this, one has to pass off a lie as the truth, unreliable - as a proven and trustworthy one.
Most of the disloyal methods are associated with a deliberate violation of the rules of proof. This includes the substitution of the thesis: instead of proving or refuting one position, they prove or refute another position, only apparently similar to the first. In the process of a dispute, they often try to formulate the opponent's thesis as broadly as possible, and narrow their own as much as possible. A more general proposition is more difficult to prove than a proposition of a lesser degree of generality.
A significant part of the disloyal tricks and tricks in the dispute is associated with the use of unacceptable arguments. The arguments used in a discussion, in a dispute, can be divided into two types: arguments ad rem (to the deed, on the merits of the case) and arguments ad hominem (to a person). Arguments of the first type are related to the issue under discussion and are aimed at substantiating the truth of the position being proved. Judgments about verified single facts can be used as such arguments; definitions of concepts accepted in science; previously proven laws of science and theorems. If arguments of this type satisfy the requirements of logic, then the proof based on them will be correct.
Arguments of the second type do not relate to the merits of the case, are not aimed at substantiating the truth of the put forward position, but are used only in order to win the dispute. They affect the personality of the opponent, his beliefs, appeal to the opinions of the audience, etc. From the point of view of logic, all ad hominem arguments are incorrect and cannot be used in a discussion whose participants seek to clarify and substantiate the truth. The most common types of ad hominem arguments are:
1. Argument to personality - a reference to the personal characteristics of the opponent, his beliefs, tastes, appearance, advantages and disadvantages. The use of this argument leads to the fact that the subject of the dispute is left aside, and instead of it, the personality of the opponent is discussed, and usually in a negative light. A variation of this technique is “attaching labels to the opponent, to his statements, to his position. There is an argument to the personality and with the opposite direction, i.e. referring not to the shortcomings, but, on the contrary, to the dignity of a person. This argument is often used in legal practice by defenders of the accused.
2. Argument to avmopumemy - a reference to the statement or opinions of great scientists, public figures, writers, etc. in support of his thesis. The argument for authority has many different forms: they refer to the authority of public opinion, the authority of the audience, the authority of the opponent, and even to their own authority. Sometimes fictitious authorities are invented, or judgments are attributed to real authorities that they never made.
3. Argument to the public - a reference to the opinions, moods, feelings of listeners. A person who uses this argument no longer addresses his opponent, but addresses those present or even random listeners, trying to win them over to his side and, with their help, put psychological pressure on the enemy. One of the most effective types of argument to the public is the reference to the material interests of those present. If one of the opponents manages to show that the thesis defended by his opponent affects the financial situation, income, etc. present, their sympathy will undoubtedly be on the side of the former.
4. Argument to vanity - wasting immoderate praise of the opponent in the hope of making him softer and more accommodating. Expressions like: “I believe in the deep erudition of the opponent”, “The opponent is a person of outstanding merit, etc. - can be considered veiled arguments to vanity.
5. Argument to force ("to the stick") - the threat of unpleasant consequences, in particular the threat of the use or direct use of any means of coercion. Every person, endowed with power, physical strength or armed, is always tempted to resort to threats in a dispute with an intellectually superior opponent. However, it should be remembered that consent torn out under the threat of violence costs nothing and does not oblige the consenting party to anything.
6. Argument to pity - excitement in the other side of pity and sympathy. This argument is unconsciously used by many people who have adopted the habit of constantly complaining about the hardships of life, difficulties, illnesses, failures, and so on. in the hope of arousing sympathy in the listeners and the desire to give in, to help in something.
7. Argument to ignorance - the use of such facts and provisions about which the opponent knows nothing, a reference to works that he, as you know, have not read. People are often afraid to admit that they do not know something, believing that they allegedly drop their dignity. In a dispute with such people, the argument for ignorance works flawlessly. However, if you are not afraid to admit that you don’t know something, and ask the opponent to tell you more about what he refers to, it may turn out that his reference has nothing to do with the subject of the dispute.
All of the above arguments are incorrect and should not be used in a strictly logical and ethically correct dispute. Having noticed an argument of this kind, one should point out to the opponent that he resorts to incorrect methods of conducting a dispute, therefore, he is not sure of the strength of his positions. A conscientious person will have to admit that he was wrong. It is better not to argue with an unscrupulous person at all.
Bibliography
1. Getmanova A.D. Logics. M., 2002
2. Getmanova A.D. Logic textbook. M., 2001
3. Ivlev Yu.V. Logics. M., 2002
4. Getmanova A.D. Logics. M., 2011
5. Kirillov V.I., Starchenko A.A. Logics. M., 2002.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
TEST
Argumentation logic
Introduction
The purpose of knowledge in science and practice is to achieve reliable, objectively true knowledge for active influence on the surrounding world - the establishment of objective truth is an important task of a democratic justice system. Reliable knowledge ensures the correct application of the law, serves as a guarantee of fair decisions.
The results of scientific and practical knowledge are recognized as true if they have been thoroughly and comprehensively tested. In the simplest cases, at the stage of sensory cognition, the verification of judgments is carried out by a direct appeal to the actual state of affairs.
At the stage of abstract thinking, the results of the process of cognition are checked mainly by comparing the results obtained with other previously established judgments. The procedure for checking knowledge in this case is indirect:
the truth of judgments is established in a logical way - through the mediation of other judgments.
Such an indirect test of judgments is called operationjustification, or argumentation.
1. Argumentation and proof
So the test of judgments is called operationjustification, or argumentation.
To substantiate any judgment means to bring others, logically connected with it and confirming its judgments.
Judgments that have passed the logical test perform the function of persuasion and are accepted by the person to whom the information expressed in them is addressed.
The persuasive impact of judgments in the communicative process depends not only on the logical factor - a well-constructed justification. An important role in the argument belongs to extralogical factors: linguistic, rhetorical, psychological and others.
Thus, underargumentation is understood as the operation of substantiating any judgments, in which, along with logical speech, emotional-psychological and other non-logical methods and techniques of persuasive influence are also used.
Methods of persuasive influence are analyzed in various sciences: logic, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics. Their joint study is the subject of a special branch of knowledge - argumentation theory(TA), which is a complex doctrine of the most effective logical and non-logical methods and techniques of persuasive influence in the communicative process.
Proof. Argumentation in various fields of science and practice does not always give unambiguous results in terms of logical value. Thus, when constructing versions in a forensic study, the insufficiency of the original factual material allows only plausible conclusions to be obtained. The same results are obtained by the researcher when he uses inferences by analogy or inferences of incomplete induction in reasoning.
In other cases, when the source material is established with certainty and sufficient to be used in the process of substantiating demonstrative reasoning, the argumentative process provides reliable, objectively true knowledge. This kind of argumentation acquires the character of rigorous reasoning and is called proof.
Proof is a logical operation of substantiating the truth of a proposition with the help of other true and related propositions.
Thus, the proof is one of the varieties of the argumentation process, namely the argumentation that establishes truth judgments based on other true judgments.
New ideas in science are not accepted on faith no matter how authoritative the personality of the scientist and his confidence in the correctness of his ideas. To do this, it is necessary to convince others of the correctness of new ideas not by the power of authority, psychological influence or eloquence, but, above all, by the power of logic - a consistent and strong proof of the original idea. Evidence-based reasoning-characteristic feature of the scientific style of thinking.
The term "evidence" in procedural law is used in two senses: (1) to refer to the factual circumstances that act as carriers of information about the essential aspects of a criminal or civil case (for example, a threat by the accused against the victim; traces left at the crime scene, etc. ); (2) to identify sources of information about factual circumstances relevant to the case (for example, witness statements, written documents, etc.).
The requirement of proof is also imposed on knowledge in legal proceedings: a judgment in a criminal or civil case is considered just if it received an objective and comprehensive justification during the trial.
Given that the concept of "argumentation" is broader (generic) than the concept of "evidence", in the following presentation, the composition, structure and rules of the argumentative process will be considered. We will turn to the proof only in those cases when it becomes necessary to show the distinguishing features of this operation.
2. The composition of the argument
Mandatory participants, or subjects, of the argumentative process are: the proponent, the opponent and the audience.
1. Proponent(Si) call a participant who puts forward and defends a certain position. Without a proponent, there is no argumentative process, since controversial issues do not arise on their own, they must be formulated and discussed by someone. The proponent can express his personal position or represent a collective opinion - a scientific school, a party, a religious community, a labor collective, or an accusation.
2. Opponent(Si) name the participant expressing disagreement with the position of the proponent. The opponent can be directly present and personally participate in the discussion. But it may not be a direct participant in the argumentative process.
For example, in a lecture on the history of political doctrines, the speaker expresses disagreement and criticizes the views of the ancient thinker Plato, whose position is incompatible with the concept developed by the speaker. In this case, Plato with his views plays the role of an opponent, or the speaker opposes Plato.
An opponent is not always a clear and personified participant in the discussion. There are speeches when those present do not object to the proponent, but there is an implicit opponent in the audience, who can subsequently make objections. The proponent can also “invent” an opponent for himself, arguing according to the principle: “No one objects to us now, but they can object in such and such a way.” Then the analysis of the "objections" of the imaginary opponent begins. The position in disputes is not so frequent, but productive. 3. Audience(S.i) is the third one, the collective subject of the argumentative process, since both the proponent and the opponent see the main goal of the discussion not only and not so much in persuading each other, but in winning over the audience to their side. Thus, the audience is not a passive mass, but a society that has its own face, its views and its collective beliefs, acting the main object of argumentative influence.
The audience is not a passive object of argumentative processing, and because it can and often actively expresses its agreement or disagreement with the position of the leading participants - the proponent and the opponent.
3. Argumentation structure
The argument has three interrelated elements: thesis, arguments, demonstration. 1. Thesis-it is a judgment put forward by the proponent, which he substantiates in the process of argumentation. The thesis is the main structural element of the argument and answers the question: what is justified.
The thesis can be the theoretical provisions of science, which are made up of one, several or a whole system of interrelated judgments. The role of a thesis can be performed by a theorem being proved in mathematics. In empirical studies, the thesis may be the results of generalization of specific factual data; a thesis can be a judgment about the properties or causes of a single object or event. So, in a medical study, a judgment is substantiated, in which the diagnosis of a particular patient is determined; the historian puts forward and substantiates the version about the existence of a specific historical fact, etc.
Judgments about individual circumstances of a criminal event are proved in judicial and investigative activities: about the identity of the offender, about accomplices, about the motives and goals of the crime, about the location of stolen things, etc. As a generalizing thesis in the indictment of the investigator, as well as in the court verdict, interrelated judgments, which set out all the essential circumstances that characterize the event of a crime from various sides.
2. Arguments or arguments-these are the initial theoretical or factual provisions, with the help of which the thesis is substantiated. They play a role grounds, or the logical foundation of the argument, and answer the question: what, with the help of which the thesis is substantiated ^
Judgments of different content can act as arguments: (1) theoretical or empirical generalizations; (2) statements of fact; (3) axioms; (4) definitions and conventions.
(1)Theoretical generalizations not only serve the purpose of explaining known or predicting new phenomena, but also serve as arguments in argumentation. For example, the physical laws of gravity make it possible to calculate the flight path of a particular cosmic body and serve as arguments confirming the correctness of such calculations.
The role of arguments can also be played empirical generalizations. For example, having an expert opinion on the coincidence of the fingerprints of the accused with the fingerprints found at the crime scene, the investigator comes to the conclusion that the accused was at the crime scene. In this case, the empirically established position on the individual nature of finger patterns in different people and their practical uniqueness is used as an argument.
The function of arguments can be performed by general legal provisions, rules of law and other evaluative standards. If, for example, the action of a particular person is qualified as fraud, then the arguments indicate the presence in his behavior of the signs of the relevant article of the Criminal Code, which provides for fraud.
(2) The role of arguments is played by judgments of facts. Facts, or factual data, are called single events or phenomena, which are characterized by a certain time, place and specific conditions of their occurrence and existence.
Judgments about facts are used as arguments in various fields - in history and physics, in geology and jurisprudence, in biology and linguistics. So, for a physicist, facts will be the results of direct observations of physical phenomena - instrument readings about temperature, pressure, and others; for a doctor - the results of tests and a description of the symptoms of the disease; for the historian - specific events in society, the collective actions of people and the actions of individuals.
Of particular importance are the facts in a forensic study, where a past single event is restored by its traces left on material objects and in the minds of people who observed this event. The facts substantiating the thesis of an indictment or sentence may be, for example: the behavior of the accused observed by the witness; traces left at the crime scene; recorded results of inspection of the crime scene; things and valuables seized during the search; written documents and other data.
When it comes to facts as arguments in the process of substantiation, they mean judgments of facts in which information about single events and phenomena is expressed. Such judgments must be distinguished from sources of information about the facts, with the help of which the information expressed in judgments is obtained. For example, primary data on the beginning of a volcanic eruption on one of the Pacific islands can be obtained from various sources: observations from a ship; instrument readings of the nearest seismic station; photographs taken from an artificial satellite. Similarly, in a forensic investigation, the fact of a threat from the accused against the victim becomes known from the testimony of a witness, the victim or the accused himself, from the text of a letter or note, etc.
In such cases, they are not dealing with many, but only with one fact-argument. However, they refer to a number of sources, through which the original information was obtained. The presence of various sources and their independence contribute to an objective assessment of the information received.
(3) Arguments can be axioms, i.e. obvious and therefore unprovable statements in this area.
Axioms are used as starting points in various branches of mathematics, physics and other sciences. Examples of axioms: "a part is less than the whole"; “two quantities that are separately equal to a third are equal to each other”; “if equals are added to equals, then the integers will be equal”, etc.
The simplest, as a rule, obvious statements similar to axioms are also used in other areas of knowledge. Thus, the obvious provision on the impossibility of the simultaneous stay of the same person in different places often serves as an argument in favor of the assertion that this person did not take a direct part in the commission of the crime, since at that time he was in another place (alibi).
Axiomatically obvious are many laws and figures of logic. The law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the axiom of the syllogism and many other provisions are accepted in logic without special proof due to their obviousness. The billionth repetition in practice leads to fixing them in consciousness as axioms.
(4) The role of arguments can be performed by definitions of the basic concepts of a particular field of knowledge. So, in the process of proving the Pythagorean theorem in geometry, previously accepted definitions of such concepts as “parallel lines”, “right angle” and many others are used. They do not argue about the content of these concepts, but accept them as previously established and not subject to discussion in this argumentative process.
In the same way, in a court session, when considering a specific criminal case, the content of such concepts as “crime”, “direct intent”, “aggravating circumstances” and many others is not discussed or established. Such concepts are said to be "accepted by definition". Criminal legislation and legal theory have established the content of many legal concepts and recorded the results achieved in special definitions, which are considered as legal conventions. Referring to such definitions means using them as arguments in legal reasoning.
3. Demonstration-it is the logical connection between the arguments and the thesis. In general terms, it is a form of conditional dependence. Arguments (ai, 82, ..., an) are logical foundations, and the thesis (T) is their logical consequence:
(ai l a2 l ... l an) -> T.
In accordance with the properties of conditional dependence, the truth of the arguments is sufficient to recognize the thesis as true, subject to the rules of inference.
The logical transition from arguments to the thesis proceeds in the form inferences. This may be a separate conclusion, but more often their chain. The premises in the conclusion are judgments in which information about the arguments is expressed, and the conclusion is a judgment about the thesis. To demonstrate means to show that the thesis logically follows from the accepted arguments according to the rules of the corresponding inferences.
The peculiarity of the inferences in the form of which the demonstration proceeds is that the judgment that needs to be substantiated, "acting thesis is an conclusion conclusion and formulated in advance. Argument Judgments serve as output messages. They are remain unknown and are subject to recovery.
Thus, in an argumentative reasoning based on a well-known conclusion - the thesis, the premises of the conclusion - the arguments - are restored.
Conclusion
argumentation persuasive judgment
Legal logic serves not only to reveal the exact meaning or clear meaning of legal norms and phenomena. It is also applied directly to achieve the goals of law: to create social discipline through strict observance of norms and control over their implementation. Thus, legal logic is used to convince citizens of the necessity or usefulness of the rules imposed on them, to convince judges of the fairness of the case, to convince the parties of the impartiality of the court decision, etc. Legal logic, therefore, interferes with another important function of a lawyer - the function of argumentation. In this case, the lawyer not only tries to state the meaning of norms and facts, he seeks to offer and defend his own solution to legal problems: the problems of developing norms, changing them or using them. His job is no longer to illuminate or explain, but to persuade. To convince those who make the law, those who must abide by it, to convince the judge, the parties, the opponents, this or that practitioner, and so on. Here, not interpretation, but affirmation is carried out, the will or the need for persuasion is manifested. This is the logic of argumentation, persuasiveness, that is, rhetoric in a more or less modern sense. The logic of argumentation uses two kinds of technique: scientific and sentimental.
Legal argumentation, first of all, can be rational argumentation, referring either to the reasoning of formal logic, or, more commonly, to the reasoning of concrete logic. It may refer either to the discipline that Aristotle called analytics or to what he called dialectic. In the first case, the lawyer seeks to build real evidence based on some norm or indisputable fact and, leading his reasoning to achieve their reliability. In the second case, the lawyer confines himself to strict, clear and precise reasoning, however, concerning more controversial or unreliable ideas or elements, in order to arrive at probable and plausible solutions, and sometimes just desirable or acceptable solutions.
However, legal reasoning can also be much less rational reasoning, relying more or less on paralogical intuitive, sensual, or overtly emotional factors. A member of parliament seeking to justify a provision of the law, a lawyer trying to convince a judge, a judge administering justice on the basis of both the Criminal Code and his convictions, all of them, consciously or unconsciously, use a whole range of ways of reasoning that are not too much connected with logic. Ways that, on the contrary, show a desire for non-logical goals aimed at protecting certain values: moral, social, political, personal, sometimes even aesthetic. The proponents of such directed legal argument are, of course, lawyers who care more about efficiency than logic, and who usually have mastered the art of skillfully constructed discussion in subtleties.
List of used literature
1. Aryulin A.A. Teaching aid for the study of the course "Logic". - K., 2007.
2. Goikhman O.Ya., Nadeina T.M. Fundamentals of speech communication: Textbook for universities / Ed. prof. O.Ya. Goykhman. - M.: INFRA-M, 2008. - 272 p.
3. Erashev A.A., Slastenko E.F. Logics. - M., 2005.
4. Kirillov V.I., Starchenko A.A. Logics. - M., 2009.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
Similar Documents
The study of the logical category and the main ways of argumentation as a full or partial justification of any statement using other statements. The essence of proof as establishing the truth of a proposition by logical means.
abstract, added 12/27/2010
The essence of the theory of argumentation. The structure of absolute and comparative justification. Classification of methods of argumentation. Example, facts and illustrations used in the argument. An example of a destructive dilemma. Theoretical and methodological argumentation.
test, added 04/25/2009
The essence of concrete and empty, abstract and general concepts, the relationship between them. Subject and predicate, construction of reasoning according to the modus of divisive-categorical reasoning. The logical form of judgments, methods of argumentation and forms of justification.
test, added 01/24/2010
Logic as a guide for correct thinking. The structure of the performance strategy. Characteristics of the performance strategy. Characteristics of the speaker's tactics. The value of argumentation in speeches and discussions. Argumentation as part of human communication.
abstract, added 12/01/2014
Judgment is a form of thinking in which something is affirmed or denied about an object, its properties or the relationship between them. Types, classification and logical structure of judgments; terminology, types of transformations, contradiction; modal statements.
control work, added 03/01/2013
Argumentation is the presentation of arguments in order to change the position or beliefs of the other party. Absolute, comparative justification. Classification of methods of argumentation. Illustrations used in argumentation, its theoretical and methodological forms.
test, added 04/30/2011
Subject and meaning, basic laws of logic, main stages of history. Concept, judgment, conclusion, logical foundations of argumentation. Logic and Rhetoric: Complementarity in the Art of Communication. Rhetoric of conversation and business communication, rhetorical canon.
training manual, added 12/21/2009
Argumentation as a way of influencing people's beliefs. Characteristics of contextual argumentation: features, types, grounds. Descriptive and evaluative character of the tradition. Rhetorical arguments to authority, absolute and relative instances.
abstract, added 11/22/2012
The essence and basic rules of argumentation in relation to the thesis, arguments, demonstrations. Errors and heuristics in the relevant procedures, the principles of their investigation and resolution. Sophisms and logical paradoxes, their formation and analysis.
test, added 05/17/2015
Basic methodological principles of logic. Expression of judgments in the language of predicates. Deductive reasoning, categorical syllogism. Argumentation and proof, rules for constructing logical rules. Problem and hypothesis, managerial decision.
Test
By discipline : Logics
on the topic: Argumentation and proof
Specialty 03503 Jurisprudence
Introduction
Cognition of individual objects, their properties occurs through the forms of sensory cognition (sensations and perceptions). We see that this house has not yet been completed, we feel the taste of bitter medicine, and so on. These truths are not subject to special proof, they are obvious.
In many cases, for example, at a lecture, in an essay, in a scientific work, in a report, during a debate, in court hearings, at the defense of a dissertation, and in many others, one has to prove, substantiate the judgments made.
Evidence is an important quality of correct thinking.
Proof -it is a set of logical methods of substantiating the truth of a judgment with the help of other true and related judgments.
Argumentation - this is the full or partial justification of a statement using other statements.
The concept of “argumentation” is richer in content than the concept of “proof”. Arguments in the process of argumentation are much more diverse than in the process of proof.
1. The concept of argumentation and evidence
Argumentation is one of the ways to justify statements (judgments, hypotheses, concepts, etc.). Statements can be substantiated by direct reference to reality (through observation, experiment and other types of practical activities), as well as with the help of already known provisions (arguments) and means of logic. In the second case, justification is also carried out by referring to reality, but not directly, but indirectly. In the course of logic, justification of the second kind, called argumentation, is studied.
Argumentation is a full or partial substantiation of a statement using other statements.. It is assumed that in good (correct) arguments, other statements are fully or at least partially substantiated and the justified position follows logically from them, or at least they confirm it.
The task of argumentation is to develop a belief or opinion in the truth of a statement. Belief is complete confidence in the truth, opinion is also confidence, but incomplete. Conviction and opinion can, of course, be developed not only on the basis of argumentation or observation and practical activity, but also by suggestion, on the basis of faith, etc.
Argumentation is the process of forming a belief or opinion about the truth of a statement (judgment, hypothesis, concept, etc.) using other statements.
The assertion that is being substantiated is called thesis argumentation. The statements used to substantiate the thesis are called arguments or grounds. The logical structure of the argument, i.e. a way of logical substantiation of the thesis by means of arguments is called form argument, or demonstration.
If the arguments are denoted by letters a 1 , ...,BUT n , thesis - letter T, and the relationship between the arguments and the thesis (in logical forms) is a double arrow, then the argumentation can be visually depicted as follows: { a 1 , ,..., BUT n } Þ T.
(Many arguments ( a 1 , ,...,BUT n) confirms the thesis T or thesis T follows logically from the given arguments, or the argument contains neither.)
A special case of argumentation is proof. Evidence is the establishment of the truth of a position using logical means and statements, the truth of which has already been established. Thus, proof is an argument in which the arguments are statements whose truth is established, and the form is demonstrative reasoning (reasoning that provides a true conclusion with true premises; demonstrative ones include, for example, deductive inferences, some types induction and analogy). Therefore, one can distinguish evidentiary argumentation and unproven argumentation.
There are three types of unproven (correct) arguments.
First: the arguments, at least some of them, are not reliable, but only plausible statements, and the form is demonstrative reasoning. The thesis in such an argument is only plausible because of the unreliability of the arguments.
Co. second The type of non-demonstrative argumentation includes arguments in which the arguments are reliable statements, and the form is non-demonstrative reasoning. In these arguments, the thesis is only a plausible statement due to the non-demonstrative form.
In unsubstantiated arguments third type arguments are not fully justified statements, and the form is non-demonstrative reasoning.
2. Methods of proof
One can single out (correct) arguments of two types on a different basis - direction of the discussion. This is straight and indirect types of arguments.
AT straight argumentation, reasoning proceeds from arguments to a thesis. For example, in the case of direct proof, the thesis is derived (deductively) from the arguments according to the rules of logic.
Indirect argumentation (one of its types) is as follows. It is required to substantiate some assertion (thesis). An assertion is advanced, which is a negation of the thesis, i.e. antithesis (admission* of indirect argumentation). From the available arguments and antithesis, a contradiction is deduced (deductively or inductively) (the conjunction of some assertion and the negation of this assertion). As a result, a conclusion is made about the validity (full or partial) of the thesis.
If the thesis is denoted by the letter T, the set of arguments is denoted by the letter
G and following - with the sign - or a wavy line (these signs
and the line denotes both deductive and inductive consequences), then the indirect argument can be schematically depicted as follows:
This type of indirect argument is called argument from the contrary, or apologetic reasoning.
It is obvious that indirect arguments can be demonstrative and unproven, and the latter, in turn, are divided into three types.
In textbooks, one more type of indirect argumentation is usually distinguished, which are called separative arguments.
Indirect logical proof from a legal point of view is not complete. The thesis proved in this way also requires substantiation by means of direct evidence.
3. Structure of the proof
The structure of the proof includes: thesis, arguments and demonstration.
Thesis- a proposition whose truth is justified.
Arguments, or arguments - judgments with which the thesis is substantiated.
The arguments used in the proofs are of the following types:
1. Established general provisions.
These arguments include:
Philosophical principles;
Principles of the considered field of science;
Rules of morality;
Rules of law.
2. Judgments taken as obvious. These include:
Axioms of scientific theory;
Knowledge about human psychology, recorded, for example, in proverbs, sayings, etc.;
In legal practice - presumptions, for example, the presumption of innocence.
3. Certified judgments of facts.
In science, it is the data of observation and experiment;
In legal evidence, verified testimonies of witnesses or a crime scene inspection report.
Demo - it is the logical connection between the arguments and the thesis. The types of demonstration coincide with the main types of inferences: deductive, inductive, and by analogy.
Aristotle in the "Rhetoric" remarks: "All orators state their arguments, either by giving examples, or by building enthymemes." Given that enthymemes are abbreviated deductive reasoning, and examples are induction and analogy, three types of demonstration are distinguished: 1) deductive; 2) inductive; 3) by analogy.
2. Argumentation
As already said, any proof needs arguments. The prover relies on them, they carry information that makes it possible to speak with certainty about a particular subject. There are several arguments in the logic. These include verified single facts, axioms and postulates, previously proven positions and definitions.
Certified Facts represent information fixed in any documents, works, databases and on various media. You can define this group of arguments as actual data. Such data include statistics, facts from life, testimonies, documents and documentary chronicles, etc. Such arguments play an important role in the proof process, as they are firm, irrefutable, and have already been proven. They can carry information about the past, which also makes authenticated facts important in terms of knowledge.
Axioms. Many of us at the word "postulates" recall school and mathematics lessons. Indeed, axioms are widely used in mathematical constructions; mathematical logic often relies on them. Confirmed by experience, previously proven facts, repeated repetition of proof, these judgments do not need proof and are accepted as arguments.
Provisions of laws, theorems, which have been proved in the past, are accepted as arguments of the proof, since their truth has already been determined and accepted. This group of arguments reminds us that all the arguments underlying the proof must be proved. The proof of the arguments of this group can be carried out both immediately before the proof of the axiom, and long before that. This group may include scientifically proven laws(for example, nature) and theorems.
The last group of arguments is definitions. They are created within the framework of all sciences regarding the subjects under consideration and reveal the essence of the latter. In the proof, one can rely on the definitions accepted and applied in any science. However, one should not forget that many definitions are being discussed and the proof based on them may not be accepted by the opponent. Here it is necessary to say about the inadmissibility of using non-scientific definitions, since the main idea in them can be distorted, and the definitions themselves can be incomplete or even false.
When proving a thesis, you can use several types of arguments - this will lead to greater persuasiveness.
Do not forget also that the main factor in proving the theory is still practical application. If the theory has been confirmed in practice, it does not require any other evidence or justification.
From the book Logic the author Shadrin D A52. Argumentation As already mentioned, any proof needs arguments. The prover relies on them, they carry information that makes it possible to speak with certainty about a particular subject. There are several arguments in the logic. These include
From the book History of Philosophy author Skirbekk GunnarHabermas and Argument Both the hermeneutical tradition (eg Gadamer) and critical deconstruction (eg Derrida, Foucault, Rorty) have in common that they begin with language as text. Therefore, these areas are closely related to comparative literature,
From the book Theory and Practice of Argumentation author Team of authorsLogic and argumentation Argumentation can be carried out in various forms, depending on the use of those methods of inference that are used for persuasion. The most convincing are, of course, deductive inferences, which in the form
From the book Fundamentals of the Theory of Argumentation [Textbook] author Ivin Alexander ArkhipovichDemonstrative argumentation Argumentation based on evidentiary reasoning should be called demonstrative, since it shows by what logical rules the process of proof, and thus argumentation, takes place. It means that
From the book Logic and Argumentation: Textbook. allowance for universities. author Ruzavin Georgy IvanovichHeuristic argumentation Unlike demonstrative argumentation, heuristic or non-demonstrative argumentation does not have such exact rules, because it is based on probabilistic or plausible reasoning. Thus, if the findings
From the book Philosophical Dictionary author Comte Sponville AndréArgumentation and Dialogue The emergence of dialogue as a form of joint search for truth was due to the development of ancient dialectics and rhetoric. The recognized master of dialogue and even the founder of this form of argumentation is Socrates, who left no written
From the book Logic for Lawyers: a textbook author Ivlev Yu. V.Persuasion and argumentation In conclusion, let us consider the question of the relationship between the categories of persuasion and argumentation, which is still controversial. Three main points of view are expressed on this issue. Supporters of the first of them consider argumentation and persuasion
From the book Logic: a textbook for law schools author Kirillov Vyacheslav Ivanovich1. Logic and Argumentation The inclusion of a section on "argumentation theory" in standard logic textbooks suggests that many (if not all) of the commonly encountered shortcomings of argumentation can be overcome by logical methods. It is tacitly assumed that
From the author's book1. What is argumentation? Argumentation is the presentation of arguments in order to change the position, or beliefs, of the other side. An argument, or argument, is one or more statements related to each other. The argument is meant to support the thesis
From the author's book2. Systemic argumentation It is difficult to point out a statement that would be justified on its own, in isolation from other provisions. Justification is always systemic. The inclusion of a new provision in a system of other provisions that gives stability to its elements,
From the author's book5. Methodological Argument Method is a system of prescriptions, recommendations, warnings, patterns, etc., indicating how to do something. The method covers primarily the means necessary to achieve a certain goal, but may also contain
From the author's bookChapter 4 CONTEXTUAL ARGUMENTATION Depending on which audience the argumentation affects, all methods of argumentation can be divided into universal and contextual. Universal argumentation is applicable to any audience.K
From the author's book2.4. Understanding and argumentation In written or oral speech, a concept is expressed by a name, which is a word or a combination of words. Therefore, in general and logical semantics, when they talk about a name, they distinguish between its meaning (or concept) and meaning, i.e. what it means
From the author's bookArgumentation An ordered set of arguments used to rationally support a thesis (prayer is not an argument), but not able to serve as proof of its truth (this will no longer be an argument, but a proof as
From the author's book From the author's book§ 1. PROOF AND ARGUMENTATION The purpose of knowledge is the achievement of reliable, objective, true knowledge for active influence on the surrounding world. Establishing objective truth is an important task of a democratic justice system. Reliable knowledge
As a result of mastering this topic, the student must: know
- - structural elements of argumentation, evidence, refutation,
- – similarities and differences between argumentation and evidence; be able to
- - to distinguish between direct and indirect evidence; own
- - Skills in the use of various methods of refutation.
Argument and proof. Argumentation structure
The logic of thinking is manifested in the evidence, the validity of the judgments put forward. Evidence is the most important property of correct thinking. The first manifestation of incorrect thinking is unfoundedness, groundlessness, neglect of strict conditions and rules of proof.
Every judgment made about something or someone is either true or false. The truth of some judgments can be verified by directly comparing their content with reality with the help of the senses in the process of practical activity. However, this method of verification can not always be used. Thus, the truth of judgments about facts that took place in the past or that may appear in the future can be established and verified only indirectly, logically, since by the time such facts are known, they either cease to exist, or do not yet exist in reality and therefore cannot be perceived directly. It is impossible, for example, to directly ascertain the truth of the judgment: "At the time of the commission of the crime, the accused N was at the scene of the crime". The truth or falsity of such judgments is established or verified not directly, but indirectly. Because of this, at the stage of abstract thinking, a special procedure is needed - substantiation (arguments).
The modern theory of argumentation as a theory of persuasion goes far beyond the logical theory of proof, as it covers not only logical aspects, but also largely rhetorical ones, therefore it is not by chance that the theory of argumentation is called "new rhetoric". It also includes social, linguistic, psychological aspects.
Argumentation is a complete or partial substantiation of a judgment with the help of other judgments, where, along with logical methods, linguistic, emotional-psychological and other non-logical techniques and methods of persuasive influence are also used.
Justify any judgment means to find other judgments confirming it, which are logically connected with the justified judgment.
In the study of argumentation, two aspects are distinguished: logical and communicative.
AT logical plan, the goal of argumentation is reduced to substantiating a certain position, point of view, formulation with the help of other provisions, called arguments. In the case of effective argumentation, the communicative aspect of argumentation, when the interlocutor agrees with the arguments and methods of proving or refuting the original position.
The core of the argumentation, its deep essence is the proof, which gives the argumentation the character of a rigorous reasoning.
Proof is a logical device (operation) that substantiates the truth of a proposition with the help of other propositions logically related to it, the truth of which has already been established.
Argumentation (as well as proof) has a tripartite structure, including the thesis, arguments and demonstration, and has uniform rules for constructing the justification process, which are discussed below.
thesis is the proposition whose truth is to be proven.
Arguments (grounds, arguments) are called true judgments, with the help of which the thesis is substantiated.
In general, there are two types of arguments: correct and incorrect, correct or incorrect.
- 1. Arguments ad rem (concerning the case) are correct. They are objective and relate to the essence of the thesis being proved. These are the following proofs:
- a) axioms(gr. axioma- without proof) - unproven scientific positions taken as an argument in proving other provisions. The concept of "axiom" contains two logical meanings: 1) a true position that does not require proof, 2) the starting point of evidence;
- b) theorems- Proven positions of science. Their proof takes the form of a logical consequence of the axioms;
- in) the laws- special provisions of the sciences that establish essential, i.e. necessary, stable and recurring connections of phenomena. Each science has its own laws, summing up a certain type of research practice. Axioms and theorems also take the form of laws (the axiom of the syllogism, the Pythagorean theorem);
- G) judgments of facts- a section of scientific knowledge of an experimental nature (observation results, instrument readings, sociological data, experimental data, etc.). As arguments, those information about facts are taken, the truth of which is confirmed in practice;
- e) definitions. This logical operation allows you to form in each scientific field a class of definitions that play a dual role: on the one hand, they allow you to specify the subject and distinguish it from other subjects in this field, and on the other hand, to decipher the amount of scientific knowledge by introducing new definitions.
- 2. Arguments ad hominem (appealing to man) in logic are considered incorrect, and the proof using them is incorrect. They are analyzed in more detail in the section "Prohibited methods of defense and refutation". Their goal is to convince at any cost - by referring to authority, playing on feelings (pity, compassion, fidelity), promises, assurances, etc.
The proof pays "close attention" to the quality and composition of the arguments. The form of transition from arguments to the thesis can be different. It forms the third element in the structure of the proof - the form of the proof (demonstration).
Form of proof (demonstration ) is the method of logical connection between the thesis and arguments.
