The main methods of proving hypotheses are: deductive justification of the assumption expressed in the hypothesis; direct detection of objects assumed in the hypothesis; logical proof of the hypothesis.
Direct detection of the desired items. Particular hypotheses in science and versions in forensic research often set themselves the task of revealing the fact of the existence at a certain time and in a certain place of specific objects and phenomena, or they answer the question about the properties and qualities of such objects. The most convincing way of turning such an assumption into certain knowledge is the direct discovery at the supposed time or place of the objects sought, or the direct perception of the supposed properties.
For example, when investigating criminal cases of theft, an important task is the discovery of stolen valuables. These values are usually hidden or realized by criminals. In this regard, there are private versions about the whereabouts of such things and values.
Versions proven by direct discovery of the alleged cause are always private. With their help, as a rule, only individual factual circumstances of the case, particular aspects of the crime event are established.
Logical proof of versions. Versions explaining the essential circumstances of the cases under investigation are transformed into reliable knowledge through logical substantiation. It proceeds in an indirect way, because events that took place in the past are known, or phenomena that exist at the present time, but are inaccessible to direct perception. This is how, for example, versions are proved about the method of committing a crime, about guilt, about the motives for committing a crime, the objective circumstances under which the act was committed, etc.
The logical proof of a hypothesis, depending on the method of justification, can proceed in the form of indirect or direct proof.
circumstantial evidence proceeds by refuting and excluding all false versions, on the basis of which they assert the reliability of the only remaining assumption.
The conclusion in this conclusion can be regarded as reliable if, firstly, an exhaustive series of versions is built to explain the event under study, and, secondly, all false assumptions are refuted in the process of checking versions. The version pointing to the remaining reason will be the only one in this case, and the knowledge expressed in it will no longer act as problematic, but as reliable.
direct proof hypothesis proceeds by deriving from the assumption various consequences, but arising only from this hypothesis, and confirming them with newly discovered facts.
In the absence of indirect proof, a simple coincidence of facts with those consequences that are derived from the version cannot be regarded as a sufficient basis for the truth of the version, because the coinciding facts could also be caused by another reason.
In science and practice, depending on the field of study, various methods of proving hypotheses are used. Three main methods are: deductive justification of the assumption expressed in the hypothesis; logical proof of the hypothesis; direct detection of the objects assumed in the hypothesis.
With regard to forensic research, we will consider two main ways of turning versions into reliable knowledge: (1) direct discovery of the desired objects and (2) logical proof of versions by confirming the consequences.
(1)Direct detection of the desired items. Particular hypotheses in science and versions in forensic research often set themselves the task of revealing the fact of the existence at a certain time and in a certain place of specific objects and phenomena, or they answer the question about the properties and qualities of such objects. The most convincing way to turn such an assumption into certain knowledge is direct detection at the supposed time or in the supposed place of the items being searched for or direct perception of the proposed properties.
For example, when investigating criminal cases of theft, as well as robbery, banditry, fraud, etc. An important task of the judicial and investigative bodies is the detection of things, valuables and sums of money acquired or accumulated by criminal means. These values and things are usually hidden or sold by criminals. In this regard, there are private versions about the whereabouts of such things and values.
Versions that are proven by direct discovery of the alleged cause are always private versions. With their help, as a rule, only individual factual circumstances of the case, particular aspects of the crime event are established.
(2)Logical Proof Versions. Versions explaining the essential circumstances of the cases under investigation are transformed into reliable knowledge through logical substantiation. It proceeds in an indirect way, because events that took place in the past are known, or phenomena that exist at the present time, but are inaccessible to direct perception. This is how, for example, versions are proved about the method of committing a crime, about guilt, about the motives for committing a crime, the objective circumstances under which the act was committed, etc.
The logical proof of the hypothesis, depending on the method of justification, can proceed in the form indirect or direct evidence.
Indirect proof proceeds by refuting and excluding all false versions, on the basis of which they assert the reliability of the only remaining assumption.
The conclusion proceeds in the form of a negative-affirming mode of a divisive-categorical inference. The elimination method can be represented as follows:
The conclusion in this conclusion can be regarded as reliable if, firstly, exhaustive range of versions , explaining the event under investigation, and, secondly, in the process of checking versions all false assumptions disproved . The version pointing to the remaining reason will in this case be the only one, and the knowledge expressed in it will no longer act as problematic, but as reliable .
This method of proof, flowing through exclusion method , often used in forensic and investigative practice when proving both general and particular versions.
Indirect proof of hypotheses in the investigation of crimes should be applied taking into account the characteristics of this type of research.
First of all, it should be noted the practical difficulty of constructing in some cases a complete list of versions explaining the event under study. With a clear insufficiency of the source material in at the beginning of the investigation, it is difficult to accurately and definitely list all the realistically possible causes , which would explain the origin of the evidence. Therefore, along with versions containing precise and clear indications of certain possible causes, one has to put forward vague assumptions.
So, for example, they put forward three versions about the identity of the criminal who committed the theft of goods from the store. The theft was committed: (1) by the seller A, (2) by the watchman B, or (3) by the previously convicted C. At the same time, the fourth version is not ruled out - the theft was committed by one of the outsiders.
If the first three versions are quite verifiable because they are about specific individuals, then the last version is difficult to verify. The consequences arising from it will be indefinite, which means that their verification will be associated with a delay in time. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded when developing versions and planning an investigation; it can be fruitful.
When referring to the method of exclusion in case of indirect proof in a forensic study, one should not overestimate its significance and limit oneself only to this logical operation in the process of searching for truth. Indirect evidence must be combined with direct substantiation of the remaining assumption.
Direct proof of a hypothesis proceeds by deriving various consequences from the assumption, but arising only from this hypothesis, and confirming them with newly discovered facts..
In the absence of indirect proof, a simple coincidence of facts with those consequences that are derived from the version cannot be regarded as a sufficient basis for the truth of the version, because the coinciding facts could also be caused by another reason.
Logic does not regard as demonstrative the transition from the assertion of the consequences to the assertion of the foundation.
Since the cause always leaves an imprint on its action, when proving a version, the main attention is paid to deriving from the version not any consequences, but those that in the aggregate would have pronounced unique, individual features , pointing to their origin from only one, quite specific cause: { S a , S b ,..., S i } .
This version of the case should be confirmedordered collection of facts { F a , F b , ..., F i } , which, on the one hand, serves as a necessary and sufficient basis for the conclusion about the reliability of a single assumption H 1 On the other hand, it excludes any other explanation of the circumstances of the case.
As a result, we have such a connection between the reason and the consequence, which can be expressed in the form of a double implication: "if and only if H 1 , That { S a , S b ,..., S i } ". Symbolically, this can be expressed as follows:
The conclusion from the assertion of the consequence to the assertion of the foundation in the presence of such a double implication will be logically legitimate. If the minor premise states that the set of facts F a , F b ,..., F i coincides with the consequences S a , S b ,..., S i, then the conclusion necessarily asserts the existence of a cause H 1 .
The reasoning takes the form:
If these conditions are met, in a forensic study, they come to such knowledge about the circumstances of the crime and its participants, which is reliable, the only possible one and does not raise doubts about its truth.
1 From the Greek word logos - "thought", "word", "reason", "regularity". The term "logic" is also used to denote the laws of the objective world (for example, "the logic of facts", "the logic of things", "the logic of political struggle", etc.); to denote the rigor, consistency, patterns of the thinking process ("the logic of thinking", "the logic of reasoning"). The regular nature of thinking is a kind of reflection of objective laws. The logic of thinking is a reflection of the logic of things.
2 From Latin word ratio - "reason", rational knowledge - knowledge with the help of reason, thinking.
4 From the Latin term abstractio - distraction. Abstraction is the process of abstracting from some properties of objects, allowing you to highlight its other properties. Abstraction is the result of abstraction.
5 Traditionally, this law is called the law of contradiction. However, the name - the law of non-contradiction - more accurately expresses its real meaning.
7 Taking into account the European traditions, in line with which logic was mainly developed in Russia, we do not dwell here on the formation and development of logical teachings in the countries of the East, where the original concepts of such thinkers as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes), etc. .
8 Mathematical logic is also called a special section of modern mathematics, exploring the specifics of mathematical reasoning and proof.
9 In the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences, Hegel formulated this idea as follows: “It is believed that everyone can think without the help of logic, just as we can digest food without studying physiology” (Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. M., 1975. T 1, p. 110). Creating dialectical logic, Hegel criticized formal logic, but he did not deny its significance. Highly appreciating Aristotle as the founder of formal logic, Hegel wrote in the same work: “The study of this formal logic undoubtedly brings certain benefits; this study, as they say, refines the mind. We are accustomed to concentrate thought, we are accustomed to abstract, while in ordinary consciousness we are dealing with mental representations that intersect and entangle with each other. (Ibid., pp. 115-116.)
10 Essence as a set of all internal, necessary properties and connections of an object, taken in their natural interdependence, is reflected in scientific concepts that are formed on the basis of a comprehensive study of the object and penetration into its internal nature with the help of scientific methods knowledge. The term " essential feature» is often used to denote the features of an object, which, although they do not reveal its real essence, are important for its characterization.
11 Words and phrases that have a specific meaning and designate an object are called names. See about this chap. I, § 4.
12 One should not confuse the logical characterization of concepts as positive and negative with the political, moral, legal assessment of the phenomena they reflect. Thus, the concepts of "aggression", "crime", "alcoholism" are positive: their content is made up of signs belonging to the subject. However, the phenomena reflected in these concepts cause us a negative assessment.
13 Usually, the closest genus is indicated, which contains more features in common with the features of the concept being defined (bringing the concept of "check" under the concept of "document" will complicate the task of definition). Therefore, in the logical literature, this type of definition is sometimes called a definition through nearest genus and species difference.
14 One of the heroes of Molière's play "The Imaginary Sick" constructed his reasoning about the cause of the sleepy power of opium as follows: opium sleeps because it has a sleepy power, and opium has a sleepy power because it sleeps.
15 From the Greek, "the same word."
16 From actually interrogative sentences one should distinguish interrogative-rhetorical sentences (rhetorical question), containing an affirmation or negation in the form of a question. For example: “Who doesn’t know this?”, “Is it possible to do this?”. These sentences express the judgments “Everyone knows this”, “You can’t do this”. They can be either true or false.
17 Since the Russian language is characterized by a mobile word order, the members of the sentence and the terms of the judgment can occupy different positions. For example: “A lone sail turns white / In the blue fog of the sea” (Lermontov). The subject of this judgment is the concept of "a lonely sail", the predicate is the concept of "whitens in the blue fog of the sea." The link is not grammatically expressed. Therefore, in the logical analysis of such judgments, primarily from works of art, especially poetic ones, it is important to correctly determine the subject, predicate and connective.
18 The words "all", "none", "some" and others, characterizing the judgment from the side of its quantity, are called quantifier words (from the Latin quantum - "how many"). The introduction of quantified words into judgment is called quantification.
19 Single judgments (affirmative and negative) according to this classification in special group are not highlighted. According to their characteristics, they are equated to the corresponding general ones: generally affirmative and generally negative.
20 The term "epistemic" comes from the Greek word "episteme", meaning in ancient philosophy the highest type of undoubted, reliable knowledge.
21 The term "deontic" is borrowed from Greek and means "duty".
22 The term "alethic" is of Greek origin, meaning "true".
There are three main methods: deductive justification of the assumption expressed in the hypothesis; logical proof of the hypothesis; direct detection of the objects assumed in the hypothesis.
Direct detection of the desired items. The most convincing way of turning a guess into certain knowledge is the direct discovery at the supposed time or place of the objects sought, or the direct perception of the supposed properties.
Logical proof of versions. Versions explaining the essential circumstances of the cases under investigation are transformed into reliable knowledge through logical substantiation. The logical proof of a hypothesis, depending on the method of justification, can proceed in the form of indirect or direct proof. In turn, logical evidence is divided into indirect and direct.
Indirect proof proceeds by refuting or excluding all false hypotheses. There remains the only assumption that can be considered true. The conclusion can be considered reliable if an exhaustive number of hypotheses is built to explain the event under study, and in the process of testing the hypothesis, all false assumptions are refuted.
Direct proof of a hypothesis proceeds by deriving various consequences from the assumption, but arising only from this hypothesis, and confirming them with newly discovered facts.
There are also two stages of constructing and proving a hypothesis:
hypothesizing
proof of the hypothesis.
Putting forward a hypothesis. The hypothesis is not built from scratch. In order to put forward it, it is necessary to have a certain set of facts related to the observed phenomena, which would suggest the probability of which assumption, explain the probability of the unknown. Therefore, the construction of a hypothesis is always associated with the collection of facts relevant to the phenomenon that we are explaining. Based on the collected facts, an assumption is made about what the phenomenon under study is, i.e. a hypothesis is formulated. An assumption in a hypothesis is logically a proposition (or a system of propositions). It is expressed as a result of the logical processing of the collected facts.
As mentioned earlier, the assumption is the main element of any hypothesis. The assumption is the answer to the question posed about the essence, cause, connection of the observed phenomena. The assumption contains that knowledge, which is reached as a result of the generalization of facts. Assumption is the core of the hypothesis around which all cognitive and practical activity takes place. An assumption in a hypothesis is, on the one hand, the result of preliminary knowledge, that is the main thing that comes as a result of observation and generalization of facts; on the other hand, it is the starting point for further study of the phenomenon, determining the direction in which all research should proceed. The hypothesis makes it possible not only to explain the existing facts, but also to reveal new facts that would not have been paid attention to when this hypothesis was not put forward.
Proof of the hypothesis. The proposed hypothesis must be proven. The proof of the conjecture is carried out as follows. Assuming the hypothesis put forward to be true, a number of consequences (facts) are deduced from it by the deductive method, which must exist if there is an apparent cause, and then these consequences are verified in practice. If the consequences are true, confirmed by practice, then this indicates that this hypothesis is correct. If the consequences logically deduced from the hypothesis do not correspond to reality, are not confirmed by our experience, then this means that the hypothesis put forward is erroneous.
The hypothesis, or version, is checked in two stages: the first of them is the deductive derivation of the consequences arising from the hypothesis, the second is the comparison of the consequences with the facts.
1. Deductive inference of consequences. Knowing the features of the hypothesis H, and also taking into account the specific conditions for its manifestation, they build a deductive conclusion: if H is assumed, then taking into account the circumstances of the case G should have mccio Si , Si . „, S „. On the diagram, it looks like this: (r H) -> (Si, S 2..., S ").
In order to successfully carry out a hypothetical-deductive inference of consequences, it is necessary to have sufficient information both about the cause itself and about the actions of this cause that are possible under specific conditions of place and time.
The value of the logical operation of deductive inference of consequences is determined by the fact that it allows rational, i.e. consistently, planned, efficiently, build the entire investigation process.
2. Comparison of consequences with facts. The second step in testing a hypothesis or version is to compare the logically deduced consequences with the facts in order to (1) refute or (2) confirm it.
1) The refutation of the version proceeds by discovering facts that contradict the consequences derived from it. The version is considered refuted only if the inconsistency is sufficiently substantiated.
2) Version confirmation. The hypothesis or version (H) is confirmed if the consequences (S) derived from it coincide with the newly discovered facts. The more such coincidences and the more diverse the consequence, the more likely the hypothesis.
The judicial decision of the court must always be based on reliable knowledge of the circumstances of the case under consideration. This means that every hypothesis in a forensic study must be proven and thus must be transformed into undoubted knowledge containing objective truth.
Methods for proving hypotheses
With regard to forensic research, we will consider two main ways of turning versions into reliable knowledge: (1) direct discovery of the desired objects and (2) logical proof of versions by confirming the consequences.
1. The most convincing way of turning assumptions into certain knowledge is the direct discovery at the supposed time or place of the sought-for objects, or the direct perception of the supposed properties. The versions proved by the direct discovery of the putative cause are always private versions. With their help, as a rule, only individual factual circumstances of the case, particular aspects of the crime event are established.
2. Logical proof of versions. Versions explaining the essential circumstances of the cases under investigation are transformed into reliable knowledge through logical justification
The logical proof of a hypothesis, depending on the method of justification, can proceed in the form of indirect or direct proof.
Indirect proof proceeds by refuting and excluding all false versions, on the basis of which they assert the reliability of the only remaining assumption.
Direct proof of a hypothesis proceeds by deriving various consequences from the assumption, but arising only from this hypothesis, and confirming them with newly discovered facts.
20. Model of the reasoned process: structure, subjects, fields of argumentation, methods of criticism in the reasoned process. Rules and errors for the thesis, arguments and demonstration.
The purpose of knowledge in science and practice is to achieve reliable, objectively true knowledge for active influence on the world around us - the establishment of objective truth is an important task of a democratic justice system.
Proof is a logical operation of substantiating the truth of a proposition with the help of other true and related propositions.
Thus, proof is one of the varieties of the process of argumentation, namely, argumentation that establishes the truth of a judgment on the basis of other true judgments.
The composition of the argument
Mandatory participants, or subjects, of the argumentative process are: the proponent, the opponent and the audience.
1. A proponent (Si) is a participant who puts forward and defends a certain position.
2. An opponent (Si) is a participant who expresses disagreement with the position of the proponent.
3. The audience (S. i) is the third, collective subject of the argumentative process,
Argumentation structure
1. The thesis 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.
2. Arguments, or arguments, are the initial theoretical or factual positions, with the help of which the thesis is substantiated. They play the role of foundation, 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.
3. Demonstration is a logical connection between arguments and thesis. In general terms, it is a form of conditional dependence.
The logical transition from arguments to a thesis proceeds in the form of a conclusion. This may be a separate conclusion, but more often their chain. To demonstrate means to show that the thesis logically follows from the accepted arguments according to the rules of the corresponding inferences.
Methods of argumentation
The purpose of argumentation when discussing controversial issues is the formation of rationally justified beliefs. Such beliefs, along with positive ones, also include negative aspects. The positive side is information about the accepted ideas, the negative side is the rejected ideas.
Substantiation of the thesis
According to the method of argumentation, two types of substantiation of the put forward position are distinguished: direct and indirect.
1. Direct justification of the thesis is called without recourse to assumptions competing with the thesis.
2. The substantiation of the thesis is called indirect by establishing the falsity of the antithesis or other assumptions competing with the thesis.
Criticism
Along with the methods of substantiating the thesis, the art of argumentation also presupposes the mastery of rational methods of criticism.
Criticism is a logical operation aimed at destroying the earlier process of argumentation.
By the form of expression, criticism can be implicit and explicit.
Plan.
1. Pre-problem and problem.
2. Definition of a hypothesis, types of hypotheses.
3. Building a hypothesis.
4. Requirements for the hypothesis.
5. Methods for proving hypotheses.
6. Theory.
7. Management decision.
An important role in science is played not only by the doctrine of logic about the forms of thinking (concept, judgment and argumentation), but also about such forms of knowledge as a problem, hypothesis and theory.
problems they name problems that are important in practical or theoretical terms, the methods for solving which are unknown or not fully known. There are two types of problems: undeveloped and developed.
Undeveloped problems is a task that is characterized by the following features. Firstly, this is a non-standard task, that is, a task for which there is no algorithm (the algorithm is unknown or even impossible). Most often this difficult task. Secondly, this is a task that arose on the basis of certain knowledge (theory, concepts, etc.), that is, a task that arose as a natural result of the process of cognition.
Thirdly, this is a task, the solution of which is aimed at eliminating the contradiction that has arisen in cognition (the contradiction between the individual provisions of the theory or concept, the provisions of the concept and the facts, the provisions of the theory and more fundamental theories, between the apparent completeness of the theory and the presence of facts that the theory cannot explain), as well as addressing the mismatch between needs and the availability of funds to meet them. Fourthly, this is a task, the solutions of which are not visible. They are sometimes called pre-problems.
A task that is characterized by the first three of the above features, and also contains more or less specific directions for solving it, is called advanced problem or actual problem. Problems are divided into types or degrees of specificity of indications on the way to their solution.
Thus, the developed problem is "knowledge about some ignorance", supplemented by a more or less specific indication of ways to eliminate this ignorance.
The problem statement usually consists of three parts:
1) a system of statements (a description of the initial knowledge - what is given);
2) a question or prompt (“How to install such-and-such?” or “Find such-and-such?”);
3) a system of indications for possible solutions.
In the formulation of the undeveloped problem, the last part is missing.
A problem is not only the knowledge of these types, but also the process of cognition, which consists in the formation of an undeveloped problem, the transformation of the latter into a developed one, and then a developed problem of the first degree into a developed problem of the second degree, etc. until the problem is solved.
The problem as a process of knowledge development consists of several stages:
1) Formation of an undeveloped problem (pre-problem);
2) Development of the problem - the formation of a developed problem of the first degree, second degree, etc. by gradually concretizing the ways of its resolution;
3) Resolution (or establishment of unsolvability) of the problem.
Reliable knowledge in the scientific or practical field is always preceded by a rational understanding and evaluation of the factual material delivered by observation. This mental activity is accompanied by the construction of various kinds of conjectures and hypothetical explanations of the observed phenomena. At first they are problematic. Further research corrects these explanations. As a result, science and practice overcome numerous misconceptions and contradictions and achieve objectively true results.
The decisive link in the cognitive chain that ensures the formation of new knowledge is hypothesis. Hypothesis is a form of development of human knowledge. Mendeleev D.I. In Fundamentals of Chemistry, he wrote that hypotheses are “necessary for science, and especially its study. They give harmony and simplicity, which without their admission is difficult to achieve. The whole history of science shows this. Therefore, we can safely say: it is better to stick to such a hypothesis, which may turn out to be wrong in time, than none. Hypotheses make it easier and make right scientific work- finding the truth, how the farmer's plow facilitates the cultivation of useful plants.
Translated from Greek. the term means "guess". But if every scientific hypothesis is based on a judgment that is probabilistic in nature, then far from every probabilistic judgment can be attributed to the field of hypotheses (for example, they do not include everyday assumptions, such as: “Probably my friend is now on the rink” , various arbitrary conjectures, "predictions" based on ignorance, etc.
A hypothesis is a special kind of assumption. A hypothesis is also called the process of cognition, which consists in making an assumption. Thus, in the scientific literature the word "hypothesis" is used in two senses.
A hypothesis in the first sense of the word (a special kind of knowledge) means a reasonable (not completely) assumption about the causes of a phenomenon, about unobservable connections between phenomena, etc.
A hypothesis in the second sense of the word (the process of knowledge development) is a complex process of cognition, which consists in putting forward an assumption, its incomplete justification and proof or refutation.
The construction of a hypothesis consists of three successive stages. First stage - analysis separate facts and relations between them; second phase - synthesis facts, their generalization; third stage - nomination assumptions about what constitutes the phenomenon under study.
The analysis of individual facts can proceed in the form of deductive ultrasonography (the initial assumptions of a syllogism are either scientifically proven provisions, or generalizations obtained in forensic investigative practice), or inductive ultrasonography (relevant facts are selected from individual facts and made from them generalization).
In addition to passing through these stages in its development, an assumption, in order to be a hypothesis, must satisfy certain requirements, which exactly hypothesis as opposed to any kind of unscientific assumptions.
The hypothesis must:
1) be sure to rely on facts, on the achievements of science;
2) to explain the whole course of phenomena, for the analysis of which it is put forward;
3) be internally consistent;
4) in principle be verifiable.
Hypothesis is a form of knowledge development, which is educated guess put forward in order to clarify the properties and causes of the phenomena under study.
Let's define character traits hypotheses:
1. A hypothesis is not just one of the possible, random logical figures, but necessary component of any cognitive process. Where there is a search for new ideas or facts, regular relationships or causal dependencies, there is always a hypothesis. It acts as a link between previously achieved knowledge and new truths and at the same time as a cognitive tool that implements the transition from the previous incomplete and inaccurate knowledge to a new, more complete and more accurate one.
2. The construction of a hypothesis is always accompanied by the nomination assumptions about the nature of the phenomena under study, which is the logical core of the hypothesis and is formulated as a separate judgment or a system of interrelated judgments about the properties of facts or regular connections of phenomena.
Since knowledge sets the task of achieving objective truth, it means that a hypothesis that gives only probabilistic knowledge is an incomplete stage on the path to truth.
In order to turn into reliable knowledge, the assumption is subject to scientific and practical verification. This process eventually leads to a refutation or confirmation and further proof of the hypothesis.
The assumption that arises when constructing a hypothesis is born as a result of an analysis of the factual material, on the basis of a generalization of numerous observations. A scientific hypothesis is not just a guess, fantasy or assumption, but based on specific materials and thus reasonable, rather than an intuitively and subconsciously accepted assumption. An important condition constructing a fruitful hypothesis is the observance of the principle objectivity of the study. IN psychologically objectivity means lack of bias when the researcher is guided by the interests of establishing the truth, and not by his subjective inclinations, preferences and desires. IN logical and methodological plan objectivity means comprehensiveness of the study.
A hypothesis in science, like a version in a forensic study, is considered valid if it satisfies the following requirements.
Consider them:
1. The hypothesis should not be logically contradictory and should not contradict the fundamental provisions of science. The last part is not absolute, because in some cases it is useful to question these very positions of science. So, in the 18th century. The French Academy of Sciences has decided not to consider studies on rocks falling from the sky, because they have nowhere to fall (we are talking about meteorites).
2. The assumption must be fundamentally verifiable. There are two types of verifiability - practical and fundamental. The assumption is practically verifiable if it can be verifiable at a given time or within a short period of time. The assumption is fundamentally verifiable if it can be verified not in the near future, but someday. Therefore, conjectures that, in principle, cannot be verified (substantiated or refuted) are not recognized as hypotheses - for example, about God.
3. The hypothesis should not contradict the previously established facts, for the explanation of which it is not intended (not related to the subject area of the hypothesis), i.e. should be as simple as possible, not require the introduction of more and more new hypotheses or assumptions.
3. The assumption must be applicable to the widest possible range of phenomena. This allows one to choose the simplest from two or more hypotheses explaining the same range of phenomena. This principle is called the principle of simplicity or "Occam's razor", because it was formulated by the English philosopher William of Ockham, who lived 600 years ago. Simplicity here means the absence of facts that the hypothesis should explain, but does not explain. In this case, it will be necessary to make reservations that the assumption explains all the facts, except for such and such, and in order to explain the latter facts, it will be necessary to put forward hypotheses auxiliary to the given case.
The cognitive or heuristic value of a hypothesis is determined by its informative, which is expressed in the predictive and explanatory power of the hypothesis - in its ability to suggest - where and how to find new, more unknown facts and give them a rational explanation.
After putting forward an assumption, explaining on its basis all the available facts related to the subject area of the hypothesis, and also after checking the fulfillment of all the listed requirements (if they are met), the assumption is usually considered not fully justified, i.e. hypothesis.
Among the many types of hypotheses, let us consider their most important varieties: the 1st in terms of cognitive functions and the 2nd object of study.
1. By function hypotheses are distinguished in the cognitive process: a) descriptive and b) explanatory.
Descriptive hypotheses - these are assumptions about the qualities and properties inherent in the object under study.
They usually answer the question: “What is this item?” or “What properties does this object have?”.
Descriptive hypotheses can be put forward in order to identify composition or structures object, disclosure mechanism or procedural features of its activities, definitions functional characteristics of the object.
For example, the hypothesis about the wave propagation of light was a hypothesis about the mechanism of light movement. Assumptions about the components and atomic chains of a new polymer in chemistry refers to hypotheses about the composition and structure. The hypothesis of a political scientist or a lawyer that predicts the social effect of the adopted new package of laws refers to functional assumptions.
Explanatory hypotheses- these are assumptions about the causes or mechanism of the object of study.
Such hypotheses usually ask: “Why did this event happen?” or “What are the reasons for the appearance of this item?”.
II. Depending on the object of study hypotheses are:
A) general and B) private IN) single.
General hypothesis called a reasonable assumption about regular relationships in nature and society and about empirical regularities. For example, the hypothesis about the atomistic structure of matter; about the origin celestial bodies and so on.
Private hypothesis - this is a reasonable assumption about the origin and properties of single facts, specific events and phenomena.
For example, the assumptions that are put forward in forensic and investigative practice, because here one has to infer about single events, people's actions, etc.
Single hypothesis- this is a scientifically based assumption about the causes, origin and relationships of single facts, specific events or phenomena. The doctor builds single hypotheses about the course of treatment of a particular patient, selecting individual medications and their dosage for him.
By confidence level distinguish between a working hypothesis and a scientific hypothesis.
Working hypothesis - this is a temporary assumption put forward from the first steps of the study, which serves as a conditional assumption that allows you to group the results of observations and give them an initial explanation.
Scientific hypothesis - is a hypothesis that explains patterns development of natural phenomena, society and thinking.
A hypothesis in a forensic study is usually called a version (from Latin - turnover, modification; from French - interpretation, translation).
Version in legal proceedings - one of the possible hypotheses explaining the origin or properties of individual legally significant circumstances or a crime as a whole.
The version differs from the scientific hypothesis in that it is put forward and tested in a relatively short time. For each case, several versions are necessarily put forward. When proposing and proving versions, they are guided not only by logical laws, but also by legal ones. The facts on the basis of which the version is considered must be identified, collected and secured in compliance with criminal procedure laws.
A hypothesis or version is tested in two steps:
1. Deductive derivation of the consequences arising from the hypothesis.
2. Comparison of consequences with facts in order to refute or confirm the hypothesis. The version is considered refuted only if its inconsistency is sufficiently substantiated.
To refute the version, it is necessary that the consequences arising from it not only do not coincide, but contradicted the actual circumstances of the case.
A hypothesis or version is confirmed if the consequences derived from it coincide with the newly discovered facts. The more such coincidences and the more diverse the consequences, the more likely the hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is said to be is confirmed.
In science and practice, depending on the field of study, various methods of proving hypotheses are used.
Three main methods are:
1. Deductive justification of the assumption expressed in the hypothesis by deriving it from a more general position;
2. Logical proof of the hypothesis by confirming the consequences;
3. Direct detection of objects and phenomena assumed in the hypothesis.
With regard to forensic research, two main ways of turning versions into reliable knowledge are considered:
1) direct detection of the desired items (for example, detection of things, valuables and sums of money acquired or accumulated in a criminal way);
2) logical proof of versions by confirming the consequences (for example, versions about the methods of committing a crime, about guilt, about the motives for committing a crime, the objective circumstances under which the act was committed, etc. are proved).
The logical proof of the hypothesis, depending on the method of justification, can proceed in the form:
A) indirect or B) direct evidence.
circumstantial evidence proceeds by refuting and excluding all false versions, on the basis of which they assert the reliability of the only remaining assumption. The conclusion can be regarded as reliable if, firstly, it is built an exhaustive range of versions, explaining the event under investigation, and secondly, in the process of checking versions all false assumptions have been refuted.
direct proof hypothesis proceeds by deriving various consequences from the assumption and confirming them with newly discovered facts. Such a version must be confirmed by the evidence system, i.e. an ordered set of facts, which serves as a necessary and sufficient basis for the conclusion about the reliability of a single assumption, and on the other hand, excludes any other explanation of the circumstances of the case.
In science, there are two levels of knowledge - empirical and theoretical. At the first level, facts are collected, their primary systematization is carried out in the form of tables, diagrams, graphs, etc.
At the second level, reality is reflected in the form theories. The word "theory" is used in the broad and narrow sense of the word.
When they want to distinguish between mental and subject-practical activity, they talk about theory and practice. In these cases theory(in the broad sense of the word) is called thinking in general.
In the narrow sense of the word, under theory understand reliable (in the dialectical sense) knowledge about a certain area of reality, which is a system of concepts and statements and allows explaining and predicting phenomena from this area.
So theory is reliable knowledge (in the dialectical sense). Although the theory is not a complete and final truth about some area of reality, it is still substantiated and proven in its main part. It contains content that will not be further refuted.
The peculiarity of the theory is that it has predictive power. In theory, there are many initial statements, from which other statements are deduced by logical means, that is, in theory, it is possible to obtain some knowledge from others without a direct appeal to reality.
The theory not only describes a certain range of phenomena, but also provides an explanation for these phenomena.
Theory is a means of deductive and inductive systematization of empirical facts
Under management decision is understood as an authoritative indication of reasonable actions aimed at achieving the optimal or pretending to be optimal, functioning and development of the control object.
The system of decisions that regulate the functioning and development of the control object is called management decision fund. Solutions that ensure the optimal functioning and development of the control object are called progressive. Solutions that at a certain stage of development of the control object cease to satisfy the requirements of its optimal functioning and development are called non-progressive. Among the non-progressive solutions, there are solutions that impede the functioning and development of the control object, that is regressive decisions, and decisions that do not interfere with the functioning and development of the control object, but at the same time do not ensure its optimal development and functioning, that is neutral solutions.
The activities of the administrative apparatus are aimed at the abolition of regressive decisions, the abolition or improvement of neutral ones and the development of progressive solutions.
Newly developed solutions can be divided into non-standard, or creative , and the standard or traditional. Non-standard solutions- these are completely new, original solutions, for which there is no sample. Decisions made repeatedly in similar situations are called standard decisions. For them, as a rule, "templates", "stamps" are developed, which, however, do not exclude individual elements creativity when using them. Subsequently, a creative solution can turn into a model of a standard solution.
In this regard, the problem arises of selecting a model of a standard solution from the storage of solutions for a specific situation. An example of such a decision accumulator is a set of typical action plans for a police department on duty when they receive a message about an incident.
When presenting the logic of developing a managerial decision, we will keep in mind the development of non-standard solutions.
The logical form of developing a managerial decision is the dialectical-logical form of the process of cognition. The process of developing a general form in dialectical logic differs from the corresponding process in formal logic.
To obtain a general formal-logical form, we abstract from specific thoughts in terms of their content. “When some complex and intricate ... question is being solved, then the elementary rule requires that first the most typical case, the most free from any extraneous, complicating influences and circumstances, be taken, and only then from its decision should be ascended further, “taking one for others take these extraneous and complicating circumstances into account.”
To find out general form development of managerial decisions, one should take the most typical decision, single out the form of its development, and then complicate this form due to the new content inherent in only some decisions.
In the model of the process of cognition, the result of which is a reasonable project of a managerial decision, a number of stages can be distinguished.
First of all, the zero stage of developing a managerial decision is singled out - preparation for developing a managerial decision, which consists in the daily study of the object of management, its place in the social system, and the principles of managing objects of a given level.
In the management process, there comes a moment when the subject of management comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to work, guided only by previously made decisions. This happens in connection with the discovery of difficulties in the functioning of the control object that need to be overcome, and the manifestation of new tasks. If the subject of management believes that it is expedient to solve new problems, then the actual development of a management decision begins.
The first stage in the development of a management decision is a targeted study of the management object. The first step of the first stage is the formulation common purpose, which must be achieved. This goal can be called the orienting goal.
If the orienting goal is exhaustive and if there are no problems in fulfilling the orienting goal, then the learning process can be completed. If there are such problems, then there is a problematic situation, that is, a contradiction between the existing needs and the availability of knowledge and means to satisfy them.
When problem situation the learning process continues. The problem itself is clarified, and then, in the aspect of the orienting goal, the study of the control object is carried out. The purpose of the study is to create the initial state of the control object.
The second stage of developing a managerial decision is the stage of forming the problem of transferring an object from the current situation to the final state.
At the first stage, an orienting goal is formulated, which is not yet specific. It only expresses the desire of the subject of management to change the existing state of affairs, its general, approximate idea of the desired result. At the second stage, the control subject again returns to the development of the goal of actions, since the study of the control object from the point of view of the orienting goal showed that clarification and specification of the goal are required, that is, the orienting goal is, as it were, denied in connection with the creation of an image of the initial state of the control object, reflecting the current situation, and should be reviewed to clarify this goal. The concretization ends with the development of a specific goal of actions, that is, the image of the final desired state of the control object.
The third stage in the development of a managerial decision is the creation and analysis of projects of managerial actions. At this stage, there is a search for management actions that can ensure the transition from the initial situation of the control object to the final state, and the means for their implementation. Initially, several options (projects) of management actions are created. For each of the options, an image of the final state of the control object is developed, taking into account the external environment, and each image of the final state of the control object is evaluated (taking into account the external environment). As a result of the assessment, options for management actions are specified or discarded. As a rule, there is only one option for management actions. If it is impossible to give preference to one option, then in many cases this indicates an insufficient study of the object. The third stage should end with the choice of one of the management action projects.
The fourth stage in the development of a management decision is the creation of a draft decision. The choice of management actions is not yet a project of a management decision, since a management decision must contain a description of the situation that has developed at the management object, as well as a rationale for management actions.
Visually, the main stages and steps of the logic of developing a managerial decision are shown in the diagram. Squares indicate the stages of the process of cognition, dashed arrows - cognitive processes, consisting in the return from the next stage to the previous one to clarify the result of cognitive activity.
