Paradoxes of Implication and the Issue of Provability
Abstract
Abstract. One of the significant obstacles in the application of logical criteria of argumentation provability is a number of paradoxes associated with the presentation of the logical consequence relation in the form of implicative expressions. However, numerous attempts to solve this problem did not lead to significant positive changes. Therefore, the search for ways of leveling the mentioned paradoxes still does not lose its relevance. In the course of the study, the following methods were used: comparative analysis (to identify common points and differences in approaches to the interpretation and solution of the analyzed problems), inductive generalization (in order to determine the dominant trends in modern studies of the logical foundations of effective construction of legal argumentation), critical analysis (when evaluating common methodological concepts in this field from the point of view of their validity and logical acceptability), logical formalization (for an unequivocally clear presentation of the fundamental foundations of the rationalization of evidential procedures in generalized formulas), logical-semantic analysis (when determining the conditions of relevance for the application of the methodological tools of modern logic in the process of building an argument). The article provides a logical-semantic substantiation of the differences between the functional content of the implication and the relation of logical inference. In view of their substantive differences, potential ways and means of avoiding the difficulties of applying logic in the proof process, caused by paradoxes of implication, are proposed. It has been established that the mentioned paradoxes will not arise if the logical condition for the evidentiality of arguments is not the functional content of the implication, but the criterion of the entry of the domain of definition of the system of given grounds into the domain of definition of a substantiated conclusion. In this case, there will be no collisions between natural and artificial linguistic means of constructing analytical reasoning. In addition, in procedural jurisprudence, it is expedient to evaluate the relationship of logical consequence between the evidence, on the one hand, and the subject of proof, on the other hand, not only in terms of the presence or absence of this relationship (as assumed by classical ambiguous logic), but also from the point of view of the degree of confirmation of what is being proven position with the given evidence (using methods of probabilistic assessment of statements and relationships between them). The proposed approach is aimed at expanding the applied potential of logic as a factor in the rationalization of evidentiary procedures.
Keywords: legal argumentation; logic of argumentation; problem of proof; criteria of proof; logical deduction; paradoxes of implication.
Downloads
References
Andreasen, T., Bulskov, H., & Nilsson, J.F. (2021). Realization of a natural logic in a database system. Flexible Query Answering Systems: 14th International Conference, on Flexible Query Answering Systems (pp. 54-66). Bratislava, Slovakia Duration. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-86967-0_5.
Arrigo, B., Sellers, B., Copes, H., & Paz, J. (2022). New qualitative methods and critical research directions in crime, law, and justice. Journal of criminal justice education, 33(2), 145-150. doi: 10.1080/10511253.2022.2027484.
Borysenko, I., Bululukov, O., Baranchuk, V., & Prykhodko, V. (2021). The modern development of new promising fields in forensic examination. Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine, 7, 137-144. doi: 10.4103/jfsm.jfsm_66_21.
Dagan, H. (2018). The New Legal Realism and The Realist View of Law. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(2), 528-553. doi: 10.1111/lsi.12319.
Evett, I. (2015) The logical foundations of forensic science: towards reliable knowledge. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 370, 1-10. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0263
Hryhorenko, A., Musiienko, O., Boyko-Dzhumelia, V., Sakovskyi, A., & Myrovska, A. (2021). Reconstruction as a method of crime investigation. Amazonia Investig, 10(45), 113-119. Retrieved from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=8336867.
Hvozdik, O. (2019). Evidence sufficiency criteria. Philosophical and methodological issues of law, 2(18), 63-70. doi: 10.33270/02191802.63.
Hvozdik, O. (2021). Formal and informal aspects of investigational logic. Philosophical and methodological issues of law, 2(22), 56-53. doi: 10.33270/02212202.56.
Konverskyi, A.Ye. (2017). The modern logic (classic and non-classic). Kyiv: TsUL.
Osterburg, J., Ward, R., & Miller, L. (2019). Criminal Investigation: A Method for Reconstructing the Past. N.Y.: Routledge.
Overill, R., & Collie, J. (2021). Quantitative evaluation of the results of digital forensic investigations: a review of progress. Forensic Science Research, 6(1), 13-18. doi: 10.1080/20961790.2020.1837429.
Pardo, M.S. (2019). The paradoxes of legal proof: A critical guide. Boston University Law Review, 99, 233-290. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3293023.
Ramos, D., Gonzalez-Rodriguez, J., Zadora, G., & Aitken, C. (2013). Information-theoretical assessment of the performance of likelihood ratio computation methods. Journal of Forensic Science, 58, 1503-1518. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.12233.
Reza, S. (2022). Material implication, paradox of material implication and its criticism. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 9(5), 25-29. doi: 10.14445/23942703/IJHSS-V9I5P104.
Roberts, P., & Aitken, C. (2014). The Logic of Forensic Proof: Inferential Reasoning in Criminal Evidence and Forensic Science. Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses. L.: Royal Statistical Society.
Smith, M. (2018). When does evidence suffice for conviction? Mind, 127(508), 1193-1218. doi: 10.1093/mind/fzx026.
Tiahlo, A.V. (2018). About the standards of proof. The forum of law, 1, 88-94. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1239007.
Tiahlo, O.V. (2022). The logic of legal considerations. Analytical and comparative jurisprudence, 2, 349-353. doi: 10.24144/2788-6018.2022.02.65.
Townsley, M., & Birks, D. (2008). Building better crime simulations: systematic replication and the introduction of incremental complexity. Journal of Experimental Cryminology, 4, 309-333. doi: 10.1007/s11292-008-9054-4.
Walton, D.N. (2008). Informal logic: a pragmatic approach (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Abstract views: 28 PDF Downloads: 41
Copyright (c) 2024 Philosophical and Methodological Problems of Law
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
- Authors reserve the right to authorship of their own work and transfer to the magazine the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows other persons to freely distribute published work with mandatory reference to authors of the original work and the first publication of an article in this magazine.
- Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements on non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published in the journal (for example, to post an article in the institution's repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is maintained.
- The journal's policy allows and encourages the posting of articles by authors on the Internet (for example, in electronic storehouses of institutions or on personal websites), both before the submission of this manuscript to the editorial office and during its editorial processing, as this contributes to the creation of a productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work.
