Eight Laws of Logic for the Forensic Construction Expert
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2021-1-19-32
Abstract
Forensic experts’ primary and additional professional education does not include such a subject as logic. At the same time, knowledge of logic is crucial at all stages of the examination process. Filling this gap, the authors of this article reveal the content of the fundamental laws of logic and demonstrate their role in the cognitive activity of knowledgeable persons who implement their specialized (primarily construction and technical) knowledge in court proceedings. This paper deals successively with such laws of logic as the law of identity, the law of contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, the law of sufficient reason, the law of double negation, Clavius’s law, the law of contraposition, and laws of division (the dichotomy of logic) concerning various investigative and forensic situations. The projection of these laws of logic on the intellectual operations performed by experts will allow, from the authors’ point of view, to give the process of forensic examinations greater clarity and consistency, which, ultimately, should ensure an increase in its efficiency and quality of results. Logically verified approaches to work will also reduce time and financial costs.
About the Authors
A. Yu. ButyrinRussian Federation
Butyrin Andrei Yur’evich – Doctor of Law, Professor at the Department of Construction and Property Management; Head of the Laboratory of Construction Forensics
Moscow 129337
Moscow 109028
E. B. Stativa
Russian Federation
Stativa Ekaterina Borisovna – Candidate of Law, Associate Professor at the Department of Construction and Property Management; Leading State Forensic Expert of the Laboratory of Construction Forensics
Moscow 129337
Moscow 109028
O. A. Manukhina
Russian Federation
Manukhina Olga Alekseevna – Senior Lecturer at the Department of Construction and Property Management
Moscow 129337
References
1. Kornakova S.V. Compliance with the Rules and Laws of Logic as a Necessary Condition for the Quality of the Result of the Investigative and Judicial Activities. Siberian Criminal Process and Criminalistic Readings. 2017. No. 1 (15). P. 74–81. (In Russ.)
2. Yurkevich E.N. Complex Character of Logic in Legal Methodology. Bulletin of the National Law University named after Yaroslav the Wise. 2019. No. 1 (40). P. 39–49. (In Ukrainian) https://doi.org/10.21564/2075-7190.40.155749
3. Egorova O.A. The Role of Logic in the Research of the Reasons of the Rational Cognition in the Classical Antique Phylosophy: PhilosophicalMethodological Aspect. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2018. No. 9 (419). P. 123–131. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24411/1994-2796-2018-10919
4. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Anthology of World Philosophy. In 4 Volumes. Vol. 1. Part 1. Moscow: Musl’, 1969. P. 407–427. (In Russ.)
5. Serednev V.A. To the Question about the Structure of the Proof and the Error of Logic of Proof. Privolzhsky Scientific Bulletin. 2015. No. 12-2 (52). P. 95–99. (In Russ.)
6. Orlov Yu.K. Contemporary Issues of Proving and Using Specialized Knowledge in Criminal Proceedings. A Scientific and Educational Manual. Moscow: Prospect, 2016. 216 p. (In Russ.)
7. Biedermann A., Bozza S., Taroni F. Decision Theoretic Properties of Forensic Identification: Underlying Logic and Argumentative Implications. Forensic Science International. 2008. Vol. 177. No. 2–3. P. 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.11.008
8. Robertson B., Vignaux G.A. Probability – The Logic of the Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 1993. Vol. 13. No. 4. P. 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/13.4.457
9. Istomina N.S. Logical Laws in Proof: Law of Excluded Middle and Law of Sufficient Reason in Proof. Economic Problems and Legal Practice. 2013. No. 4. P. 73–75. (In Russ.)
10. Paul R., Aitken C. The Logic of Forensic Proof: Inferential Reasoning in Criminal Evidence and Forensic Science. Guidance for Judges, Lawyers, Forensic Scientists and Expert Witnesses: Practitioner guide No. 3. Royal Statistical Society, 2013. 159 p.
11. Saks M.J., Faigman D.L. Failed Forensics: How Forensic Science Lost Its Way and How It Might Yet Find It // Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2008. Vol. 4. P. 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172303
12. Balashov S.K. About Construction’s Scheme of Common Chain of Causal Relationship of a Crime. Philosophy of Law. 2016. No. 1 (74). P. 64–67. (In Russ.)
13. Balashov S.K. Formal Logic and Criminal law. Philosophy of Law. 2014. No. 6 (67). P. 30–33. (In Russ.)
14. Cherdantsev A.F. Logical and Linguistic Phenomena in Jurisprudence. Monograph. Moscow: Norma, Infra-M, 2012. 320 p. (In Russ.)
15. Krivoukhova Yu.A. Laws of Logic and Their Application in Scientific Theory. Symbol of Science. 2017. No. 1. P. 117–119. (In Russ.)
16. Listvina E.G. Propositional Attitudes and Scientific Knowledge in Culture. International Research Journal. 2016. No. 2 (44). Part 4. P. 91–94. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18454/IRJ.2016.44.114
17. Gorelov A.A., Rumba O.G., Shustin B.N., Yakhontov E.R. Logic and Basic Stages of the Organization Scientific Research. Sports Science Bulletin. 2018. No. 6. P. 4–8. (In Russ.)
18. Kareev N.I., Malinov A.V., Dolgova E.A. The General of Methodology of the Humanities. Chapter 2. The Logical Prerequisites of the Methodology. Russian Sociological Review. 2017. No. 3. P. 327–365. (In Russ.)
19. Shipunova O.D. The Problem of Sense Translation: “Logos’’ in Communication System. Society. Communication. Education. 2011. No. 2 (124). P. 9–15. (In Russ.)
20. Perelgut N.M. On the Question of Strategies for Constructing a Text. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. 2009. No. 43 (181). Issue 39. P. 113–115.
21. Seagal K.Y. Rescriptive Rules of Linearization in Cognition and Text (on the Material of Russian Coordinating Constructions). Issues of Cognitive Linguistics. 2005. No. 3. P. 11–25. (In Russ.)
22. Eisman A.A. Expert Opinion (Structure and Scientific Validation). Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura, 1967. 152 p. (In Russ.)
23. Orlov Yu.K. Logical Structure of an Expert’s Opinion as Judicial Evidence. Theoretical Questions of Forensic Expertise. Collection of Scientific Papers. Moscow: VNIISE, 1981. Issue 48. P. 3–22. (In Russ.)
24. Orlov Yu.K. Expert’s Opinion and Its Assessment (in Criminal Cases). Moscow: Yurist, 1995. 64 p. (In Russ.)
25. Puchkova T.M. The Essence and Classification of Tasks in Forensic Examinations. Theoretical and Practical Questions of Forensic Expertise. Collection of Scientific Papers. Moscow: VNIISE, 1979. Issue 38. P. 52–72. (In Russ.)
26. Orlov Yu.K. Forensic Expertise as a Means of Proof in Criminal Proceedings. Moscow: IPK RFCFS, 2005. 264 p. (In Russ.)
27. Kornakova S.V. The Art of Persuasion as a Necessary Component of the Professional Competence of a Defense Counsel. Legal Science and Law Enforcement Practice. 2019. No. 1 (47). P. 7–13. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Butyrin A.Yu., Stativa E.B., Manukhina O.A. Eight Laws of Logic for the Forensic Construction Expert. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2021;16(1):19-32. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2021-1-19-32