The objects of likeness here are liquid and sound, the transmitted sign is a wave way of propagating them.
As for the role of analogy in legal theory and practice, the analogy is used in cases of legal assessment, as well as in the process of investigating and conducting forensic examinations.
From the logical point of view, the legal assessment of the case proceeds, as a rule, in the form of a syllogism, where a certain basis is a certain rule of law, and less – knowledge of a particular fact. In addition, in some legal systems, a legal assessment is assumed by analogy with the law or by precedent. Based on the practical difficulty of predicting and listing in law all types of offenses that may arise in the future, the legislator gives the court the right to assess cases not provided by law on the rules governing similar legal relations. This is the essence of the legal institution of analogy of law.
Analyzing the factual material, the judge and the investigator use not only the general knowledge gained by science and practice, but also refer to individual experience – their own and others. Comparing a particular case with previously investigated individual cases helps to identify similarities between them and on this basis, likening one event to another, to identify new, previously unknown signs and circumstances of the crime.
In the clearest form inferences by analogy meet at disclosure of crimes on a way of their commission.
Often inferences by analogy are often used in certain types of forensic examinations, which set the task of identifying the individual or material objects:
identification on the basis of appearance, fingerprints, footprints, teeth, hands, etc.; establishing the executor of the text or signature; installation of weapons on bullets and shell casings, as well as tools, means of burglary, vehicles on their tracks, etc.
Due to various reasons, the conclusions of a forensic expert may have the character of problematic conclusions. In contrast to reliable conclusions, such plausible expert opinions, like any other assumptions, cannot serve as judicial evidence. But these same conclusions often play an important role, providing the investigation with additional information to build versions and verify them, perform operational actions, etc.
According to the nature of similar objects, there are two types of analogies: the analogy of objects and the analogy of relations.
An analogy of objects is an inference in which the object of assimilation is two single objects, and the transferred feature is the properties of these objects.
An example is the explanation in the history of physics of the mechanism of sound propagation, when the motion of sound was likened to the wave motion of a liquid, resulting in the wave theory of sound.
The objects of likeness here are liquid and sound, the transmitted sign is a wave way of propagating them. When physics later faced the question of the nature of light motion, the Dutch physicist and mathematician of the 17th century. Huygens, relying on the similarity of light and sound in properties such as their rectilinear propagation, reflection, refraction and interference, likened the motion of light to sound and concluded that light also has a wave nature.
The logical basis for the transfer of features in analogies of this kind is the similarity of similar objects in essential features, characterizing the object as a whole or in terms of its individual properties.
An analogy of relations is an inference in which the object of assimilation is the relationship between two pairs of objects, and the transferred sign is the properties of these relations.
History knows many examples of scientific discoveries through the similarity of relations in physics, astronomy, biology, mathematics, etc. In analyzing the phenomena of social life, the analogy of relations often helps the correct approach to assessing individual events, contributes to the correct tactical line in politics.
When referring to the analogy of relations should be borne in mind the peculiarities of this conclusion and do not confuse it with conclusions by analogy of subjects. If in the latter two single objects are likened, then in the first the objects themselves are not compared and cannot even assume assimilation. The similarity of the relationship between x and in the relationship between m and n does not mean that x should be similar to m, and y should be similar to n. These items may not be comparable. It is important that the relationship between the first pair of items corresponds to the relationship between the two items of the second pair.
Misunderstanding of the conclusions on the analogy of relations is found in everyday practice, which leads to mixing the analogies of relations with the analogy of objects.
Knowledge obtained by analogy, are different in their validity: in some cases, the conclusions are problematic, in others – reliable.
The value of conclusions in reasoning by analogy is determined by the nature of the initial knowledge about the compared objects:
similarity of similar objects; the difference between them; the nature of the relationship between the signs of similarity and the transferred signs.
Consider these conditions in more detail.
1) Similarity of similar objects. Establishing similar features in the compared objects or relationships is the main basis for the application of the inference by analogy. The conclusion will be true only if the real similarity is revealed and fixed, thus not in any, but only in essential signs.
2) Differences between similar objects. An important condition for the validity of the conclusions by analogy is to take into account the features that distinguish similar objects. There are no absolutely similar phenomena in nature: the highest degree of similarity always implies differences. So, in any case, there are similarities and differences between the compared objects. These differences affect the conclusion process in different ways by analogy.
In some cases, the differences are insignificant, ie compatible with the tolerated trait. They do not interfere with the assimilation and transfer of the sign, although, as a rule, change the form, intensity or conditions of its manifestation.
Properties that prevent the transfer of signs from one subject to another are called negative signs of disagreement. As a rule, they are incompatible with the tolerated sign or attitude. If the object a next to the signs of similarity A, B, C find a sign M, which is incompatible with the tolerated sign T, or special conditions that prevent its manifestation, this circumstance generally precludes the use of analogy.
3) The relationship between the signs. Depending on the nature of the relationship between the signs, there is a strict analogy, which gives a reliable conclusion, and the analogy of non-strict, the conclusion of which is problematic.
A strict analogy is distinguished by the necessary connection of the transferred sign with the signs of similarity.
A loose analogy is a similarity when the relationship between similar and tolerated features is thought to be necessary only with a greater or lesser degree of probability. In this case, finding signs of similarity in the second object, you can only in a logically weakened form to conclude that the latter belongs to the transferred feature.
A loose analogy is often found in socio-historical research, because it is difficult to take into account such a relationship between phenomena that would necessarily indicate all the ensuing consequences.
Toftul MG Logic. K., 1999. P. 332. Konversky AS Logic. – K., 1998. – P. 266. Kondakov IV Logic. – M., 1984. – P. 68. Khomenko IV, Aleksyuk IA Fundamentals of logic. – K., 1996. – P. 113. Khomenko IV What is logic // Colors of creativity. K., 1995. – P. 83-95.
Logical grammar or theory of semantic categories. Abstract
From grammar the division into parts of speech is well known. Among them – noun, adjective, verb, etc. The division of linguistic expressions into semantic categories, which are widely used in logic, resembles this grammatical division and, in principle, came out of it
The theory of semantic what should i write my lab report about categories is sometimes called “logical grammar”. its task is to prevent the mixing of linguistic expressions of different types and thus the formation of meaningless ones, such as “quadraticity drinks imagination” or “if the wind blows, then the star.”
The idea of semantic categories was put forward at the beginning of this century by E. Husserl, who called them “categories of meaning.” As a logical and philosophical doctrine widely used in language research, the theory of categories was developed in detail by Polish logicians S. Lesniewski, K. Aidukevich and A. Tarsky.
The division of linguistic phrases into semantic categories occurs depending on what these phrases mean. It is considered that two expressions belong to the same semantic category of the considered language, if the replacement of one of them by another in an arbitrary meaningful sentence does not make it meaningless.
On the contrary, two expressions always belong to different categories, if the substitution of one of them instead of the other leads to a loss of meaning.
For example, the names “Socrates” and “Plato” belong to the same semantic category: the replacement of one of them by another, in any sense of the sentence, gives again a meaningful sentence. For example, the sentence “Plato was the teacher of Aristotle” is meaningful and true. The sentence we derive from it by substitution, “Socrates was the teacher of Aristotle,” would be erroneous but meaningful.
The expressions “Socrates” and “stands” belong to different semantic categories, because from the sentence “Socrates stands” when replacing the word “stands” with the word “Socrates” the expression “Socrates Socrates” is formed, which is not a sentence at all.
A few more examples. The expressions “either .., or ..,” and “if .., then …” belong to the same category, because when converting, say, the sentence “or it rains, or there will be wind” in the sentence “if it rains, then the wind blows” meaningfulness is preserved. The words “more” and “senior” also belong to the same semantic category, because any sentence meaningful with one of these words will be meaningful with the other.
The expressions “greater” and “or” fall into different categories: the replacement of the first expression by the second in a meaningful, albeit erroneous, sentence “Madrid greater than Paris” gives a meaningless whole “Madrid or Paris.” Similarly, the replacement of “or” by “each” leads to the transformation of a meaningful sentence into meaningless, so “or” and “each” belong to different semantic categories. The notion of meaningfulness used in the definition of categories is, strictly speaking, syntactic rather than semantic, so it would be more accurate to call categories “syntactic”.