An assumption or statement suggestive evidence in research. Types of evidence: direct and indirect evidence

In science and practice, depending oi research areas enjoy different ways evidence of zhpotez. 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. important task judicial-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.

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 turn into worthy

correct knowledge of the logical rationale. It proceeds in an indirect way, because events that took place in the past are known, or phenomena that exist in 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 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.

The conclusion proceeds in the form of a negative-affirming mode of a divisive-categorical inference. The elimination method can be represented as follows:

lHi,lH;

The conclusion in this conclusion can be regarded as reliable if, firstly, an exhaustive range of versions, explaining the event under investigation, and, secondly, in the process of checking versions all false assumptions have been refuted. 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 authentic.

This method of proof, flowing according to the method exceptions, often used in forensic practice when proving both general and private versions.

Indirect proof of hypotheses in the investigation of crimes should be applied taking into account the characteristics of this type of research.

So, for example, they put forward three versions about the identity of the criminal who committed the theft of goods from the store. Theft committed:

(1) the seller A, (2) the watchman B, or (3) 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, since they deal with specific individuals, then latest version difficult to check. 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.

H->S,S

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 characteristics, pointing to their origin from only one, quite definite cause: (Sa, sb,..., S,).

Such a version of the case must be confirmed in an orderly manner. set of facts(Fa, Pb, ..., F,), which, on the one hand, serves as a necessary and sufficient basis for the conclusion about the reliability of a single assumption Hi, 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 Hi, then (Sa, Sb,..., S,)". 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 Fa, Fb,..., F, coincides with the consequences Sa, Sb,..., Sn, then the conclusion necessarily asserts the existence of a cause Hi."The argument becomes:

Hi<^ S,S Hi

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.

TEST QUESTIONS

1. What is the logical mechanism for constructing a hypothesis (forensic version)?

2. Logic of refutation of hypotheses.

3. What are the stages of hypothesis testing?

4. How is a hypothesis confirmed?

5. Is it possible to combine direct and indirect methods of proving the hypothesis?

6. Is it possible to prove the hypothesis by confirming the derived from her consequences 9

7. What is the elimination method and how does it work in proving a hypothesis?

8. How is the method of exhaustive choice applied when constructing a hypothesis?

LITERATURE

Alekseev AL. Argumentation. Cognition. Communication. M., 1991. Arno A., Nicole P. Logic, or the Art of Thinking. M., 1991. Asmus V.F. The doctrine of logic about proof and refutation. M.,

Bocharov V.A., Markin V.I. Fundamentals of logic. M., 1994.

Voshivillo E.K. Concept as a form of thinking. M., 1989.

Voishvillo E.K., Degtyarev M.G. Logics. M., 1994.

Getmanovi A.D. Logics. M., 1995.

Gorsky D.P. Definition. M., 1974.

Zeget V. Elementary logic. M., 1985.

Ivlev Yu.V. Logics. M. 1993.

Lebedev S.A. Induction as a method of scientific knowledge. M., 1980.

Povarnin S. Dispute. On the theory and practice of the dispute. SPb., 1996.

Svchntsov V.I. Logics. M., 1987.

Starchenko A.A. Logic in forensic research. M., 1958.

Uemov A.I. Analogy in the practice of scientific research. M.,

Collections of exercises. Reference publications

Kirillov V.I., Orlov G.A., Fokina N.I. Logic exercises. M., 1997.

Gorsky D.P., Ivin A.A., Nikiforov A.L. A short dictionary of logic. M., 1991.

Kondakov N.I. Logical dictionary-reference book. M., 1975.

SUBJECT INDEX

Lbstra! ing 6, 32 Abstraction 6 Lxioma 130,200

As argument 200

Syllogism 130 Alternative 151 Analysis 32 Analogy 184

Lax 188

Relationships 186

Items 185

Straw| aya 188 L1pithesis205 Argument 199

- to fidelity 223

- to the benefit 223

To common sense 223

- to 1 yuvezhes! woo 223

To strength 223

To co-gradation 223 Lr|umsngatsin 195, 196

Rules and errors 212-223 Audience 188

Persia 235

Species difference 49

Question 107

Views 108-112 Inferential knowledge 119 You under 119 Expression 66

Hypothesis 231

General 233

Explanatory 233

Descriptive 232

Building 236-241

Check 241-244

- working 234

Methods of proof 244-247

Private 234

Deductive reasoning 120 Division 55

Dicho1 ohmic 57-59

According to the modification of the sign 56

Rules and errors 56,57 Demonstration 203 Denogat21 Definition 47 Dilemma 151

Simple destructive 152

Simple design 151

Complex destructive 152

Complex constructive 152 Argument 199 Proof 196

Conclusion 119 The Law of Thought 11

De Morgan 12

Sufficient reason 16

The excluded third! about 15

Contradictions 13

The inverse relationship between the volume and content of the concept 35

Tojlesgva 12

Name 20 Induction 161

Method of exclusion (elimination) 169

Method of selection (selection) 16&

Scientific 168

Incomplete 165

Full 162

Popular 166

Axiom 130

Mods 135

Rules and errors 131-134

Simple 128.130

Complex 155

Shapes 135 Class (set) 34

Single 35

Zero 35

Universal 35 Classification 59, 60 Criticism 207

Arguments 209

Demos 210

Destructive 208

Constructive 211

Implicit 207

Mixed 211

Thesis 208

Explicit 208

Sayings 157

Dialectic 26"

Mathematical 26

Predicates 20

Symbolic 25.26

Formal 24,26,27 Logical square 87 Logical stress 66

Methods for establishing causal relationships (methods of scientific induction) 171

Remains 179

Differences 174

The combined method of similarity and difference 175

Related changes 176

Similarities 171 Modality of judgments 94

Illogical 103

Deontic 99

Logic 103

Actual 103

Epistemic 95 Thinking 6-8

Generalization 32,45

Reception of the formation of concepts 32

Operation with concepts 45

Statistical 181 Substantiation of the thesis 202

In the form of an analogy 204

Deductive 202

Inductive 204

Indirect apagogic 205

Indirect separation 207

Direct 202 Circulation 122

Operations with classes 60-62 Opponent 197 Definition 47

Genetic 50 , _ - implicit 48

Rated 48

Rules and mistakes 50-52

Techniques replacing the definition 53,54

Ostensive 53

Real 48

Through genus and species difference 49, 50

Explicit 48 Response 107

Species 112-118

Paralogism 212

Subclass (subset) 34 Concept substitution 13 Cognition 5

Sensual 5

Thinking 6-8 Field of Argument 224 Concept 30

Species 36-39

And word 33.34

Division 55

Generalization 45

Limit 45

- definition 47

Big 129

Smaller 129 Correctness logical 10

And truth 10 Pragmatics 19

Transformation 121 Predicate 67 Feature 30

Single 31

Essential 30 Proponent 197 Predicate opposition 124

Distribution of terms

in judgments 76-78 Reflexivity 141 Genus 41

Linkage 67 Semantics 19 Semiotics 19 Symmetry 141 Syntax 19 Synthesis 32 Meaning 21

Coordination of argumentation fields 227-230 Sophism 212 Comparison 32 Sorites 155,156 Subject 67,197

Judgments 67 . - arguments 197 Judgment 64

Attribute 67

Highlighting 74

Exclusive 75

And sentence 64-66

Classification by quality and quantity 69,70,71,72

Combined classification 72, 73

Simple 66

Separating (disjunctive) 80 "

Complex 66

Connective (conjunctival) 78

Relationship 68

Existences (existential) 69

Conditional 82

- equivalent 84

Thesis 198 Term 67,128,129

Judgments 67 Transitivity 142

Inference 119

Deductive 120

Demonstrative 120

From judgments with relations 141

Inductive 161

i-non-demonstrative 120

Immediate 120

Indirect 120

By analogy 184

By logical square 126

Conditionally dividing 151

Purely conditional 144

Enthymeme 153 Epicheirema 156

Natural 19

Artificial 19

Logic statements 20

Predicate logics - 20,22,23

LOGICAL SYMBOLS

quantifiers

- commonality

existence

Bundles

- conjunction(s)

The disjunction is not strict (or)

Strict disjunction (or)

Implication (if..., then...)

Equivalence (if and only if..., then...)

Negative (not true that...)

Symbols for Modal Operators

modality

Proven (Verified)

Refuted (falsified)

Necessarily

Forbidden

Allowed

Necessary

By chance

maybe

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.

(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.

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.

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. .

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 confirmed ordered 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 H1 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 H1, then (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 H1.

The reasoning takes the form:

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.

From the Latin word ratio - "reason", rational knowledge - knowledge with the help of reason, thinking.

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.

According to tradition, this law is called the law of contradiction. However, the name - the law of non-contradiction - more accurately expresses its real meaning.

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.

Mathematical logic is also called a special branch of modern mathematics, exploring the specifics of mathematical reasoning and proof.

In the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences, Hegel formulated this idea as follows: “It is believed that anyone can think without the help of logic, just as we can digest food without studying physiology” (Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. M., 1975. T. 1. S. 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.)

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 using scientific methods of cognition. The term "essential feature" is often used to refer to the features of an object, which, although they do not reveal its actual essence, are important for its characterization.

Words and phrases that have a specific meaning and designate an object are called names. See about this chap. I§ four.

The logical characterization of concepts as positive and negative should not be confused with the political, moral, and 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.

Usually, the closest genus is indicated, which contains more features that are 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.

One of the heroes of Molière's play "The Imaginary Sick" constructed his reasoning about the reason for the sleeping power of opium as follows: opium sleeps because it has a sleepy power, and opium has a sleepy power because it sleeps.

From the Greek - "the same word."

Interrogative-rhetorical sentences (rhetorical question) containing an affirmation or negation in the form of a question should be distinguished from interrogative sentences proper. 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.

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.

The words “all”, “none”, “some” and others that characterize the judgment from the side of its quantity are called quantifier words (from the Latin quantum - “how much”). The introduction of quantified words into judgment is called quantification.

Single judgments (affirmative and negative) according to this classification are not allocated to a special group. According to their characteristics, they are equated to the corresponding general ones: generally affirmative and generally negative.

The term "epistemic" comes from the Greek word "episteme", meaning in ancient philosophy the highest type of undoubted, reliable knowledge.

The term "deontic" is borrowed from the Greek language and means "duty".

The term "alethic" is of Greek origin, meaning "true".

(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.

(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:

u H 1 , u H 2

This method of proof, flowing through exclusion method , often used in forensic and investigative practice when proving both general and private 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 reasons, one has to put forward vague assumptions. For example, three versions are put forward about the identity of the criminal who stole 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.

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. .

H®S,S

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 must be confirmed ordered 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 H1 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 H1, then (S a , S b ,…S i )". Symbolically, this can be expressed as follows:

H 1 ® S

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 in the conclusion they necessarily assert the existence of a cause H1.

The reasoning takes the form:

H 1 ® S

TEST QUESTIONS

1. What is the logical mechanism for constructing a hypothesis (forensic version)?

2. Logic of refutation of hypotheses.

3. What are the stages of hypothesis testing?

4. How is a hypothesis confirmed?

5. Is it possible to combine direct and indirect methods of proving the hypothesis?

6. Is it possible to prove a hypothesis by confirming the consequences derived from it?

7. What is the elimination method and how does it work in proving a hypothesis?

8. How is the method of exhaustive choice applied when constructing a hypothesis?

LITERATURE

Alekseev A.P. Argumentation. Cognition. Communication. M., 1991.

Arno A., Nicole P. Logic, or the Art of Thinking. M., 1991.

Asmus V.F. The doctrine of logic about proof and refutation. M., 1954.

Bocharov V.A., Markin V.I. Fundamentals of logic. M., 1994.

Voishvillo E.K. Concept as a form of thinking. M., 1989.

Voishvillo E.K., Degtyarev M.G. Logics. M., 1994.

Getmanova A.D. Logics. M., 1995.

Gorsky D.P. Definition. M., 1974.

Zeget V. Elementary logic. M., 1985.

Ivlev Yu.V. Logics. M. 1993.

Lebedev S.A. Induction as a method of scientific knowledge. M., 1980.

Povarnin S. Dispute. On the theory and practice of the dispute. SPb., 1996.

Svintsov V.I. Logics. M., 1987.

Ssharchenko A.A. Logic in forensic research. M., 1958.

Uemov A.I. Analogy in the practice of scientific research. M., 1970.

In science and practice, depending on the field of study, various methods of proving hypotheses are used. Three main methods are: deductive justification expressed nogo in the hypothesis of the assumption; logic proof hypo theses; direct detection of objects proposed in the hypothesis .

(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 detectionat the supposed time or place of the searcheditems or direct perception of the proposed properties.

(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 vanity.

Indirect evidence proceeds by refutation and inclusion of all false versions, on the basis of which they claim before the validity of the only remaining guess.

The conclusion proceeds in the form of a negative-affirming mode of a divisive-categorical inference. The elimination method can be represented as follows:

 H 1  H 2  H 3   H 1 ,  H 2

H 3

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 private 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 an investigation, it is difficult to accurately and definitely list all possible causes , which would explain the origin of the evidence. Therefore, along with versions containing precise and clear indications of certain possible reasons, one has to put forward vague assumptions. For example, three versions are put forward about the identity of the criminal who stole 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.

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 yarn we are M substantiation of the remaining assumption.

Direct proof of the hypothesis proceeds by deriving from the assumption various, but arising only from the givenhypotheses of consequences and confirmation of their newly discovered facts .

H  S,S

? n

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 specific features , pointing to their origin from only one, quite specific cause: { S a , S b ,..., S i }.

This version of the case must be confirmed orderly set 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 , then { S a , S b ,… S i } ". Symbolically, this can be expressed as follows:

H 1   S

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 in the conclusion they necessarily assert the existence of a cause H 1 .

The reasoning takes the form:

H 1   S

H 1