Logic and theory of argumentation

Introduction

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of logic and the theory of argumentation not only in the development of scientific knowledge, but also in everyday life. For science, the essential points are effective ways of processing information and research methods, forms of thought and operations with them, the basics of evidence, rules for constructing hypotheses and theories. In general, everything that forms the basis of logic and the theory of argumentation. In everyday life, it is very important to be able to defend your point of view and find a way out of a difficult life situation. This is greatly facilitated by the study of logic and the theory of argumentation.

This discipline was formed at the intersection of several sciences - logic, rhetoric, psychology, etc. Moreover, the theory of argumentation and logic can be studied as separate disciplines, each of which has its own area of ​​study: logic - forms of thinking, their features and interaction, laws of thinking; theory of argumentation - methods of persuasion. Combining logic and theory of argumentation pursues the goal of forming a student’s logical culture, based on theoretical knowledge of the fundamentals of logic and the practical application of these fundamentals in the process of argumentation.

Developed logical thinking is one of the signs of a modern educated person. The ability to think clearly and quickly make the right decision based on an analysis of the current situation ensures that a person is in demand and successful in his professional activities. For example, the ability to use the entire arsenal of logical knowledge and methods of persuasion will be useful in professional activities that involve interaction with people, the opportunity to influence their opinions, tastes, and choice of a particular product. Therefore, people who have chosen a field of activity such as public relations, personnel management, etc. it is necessary to study logic and the theory of argumentation.

Topic 1. Subject of logic

define logic;

characterize the stages of development of formal logic;

indicate the features of non-classical logic;

understand the meaning of building logical formalized systems;

name the main aspects of the language;

understand the uniqueness of the logical approach to the study of thinking in comparison with other sciences.

Logics is the science of the forms, methods and means of correct thinking. Generally valid forms of thought include concepts, judgments, inferences, and generally valid means of thought include definitions, rules for the formation of concepts, judgments and inferences, rules for the transition from one judgment or inference to another as consequences of the first (rules of reasoning).

Formal logic went through two main stages in its development. The beginning of the first stage is associated with the works of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, in which a systematic presentation of logic was first given. Aristotelian logic and all pre-mathematical logic are usually called "traditional" logic. Traditional logic identifies and describes some of the simplest forms of reasoning fixed in language. The second stage is the emergence of mathematical or symbolic logic. For the first time in history, ideas about constructing logic on a mathematical basis were expressed by the German mathematician G. Leibniz at the end of the 17th century. The first implementation of Leibniz's idea belongs to the English scientist D. Boole (mid-19th century). He created an algebra in which letters represent statements. Thanks to the introduction of symbols into logic, the basis was obtained for the creation of a new science - mathematical logic. The application of mathematics to logic made it possible to present logical theories in a new, convenient form and to apply the computing apparatus to solving problems that are inaccessible to human thinking due to their complexity.

Modern symbolic logic is a very ramified field of knowledge. Symbolic logic is divided into classical and non-classical. Non-classical logic is also divided into intuitionistic logic, modal logic, question logic, relevant logic, etc. Non-classical logic is based on the idea that the law of excluded middle is inapplicable in some cases, in particular when it comes to infinite sets. In addition, in a number of areas of non-classical logic, the initially two-valued logic of Aristotle is transformed into three-valued, four-valued, and then multi-valued.

Traditional logic was empirical in nature. She identified and described some of the simplest forms of reasoning from the so-called categorical judgments recorded in the language of everyday use. Modern logic has expanded the range of forms under consideration, introducing into it reasoning specific to scientific knowledge, in particular, mathematical knowledge. Moreover, modern logic has defined the principles of theoretical substantiation of the conditions for the correctness of conclusions and evidence, using the concepts: logical law and logical implication.

Unlike other sciences that study thinking, logic studies the features and properties of forms of thought, while abstracting from the specific content that these forms of thought can carry; she studies them from the point of view of structure, structure, i.e. internal natural connection of the elements that make up the form of thought.

It should be borne in mind that logical forms and laws are universal and objective, that is, they are not associated with any psychophysiological characteristics of people or with certain cultural and historical factors.

Thinking is closely related to language, however, these are not identical concepts. Language is a material formation, which is a certain sign system that allows you to express thoughts, store them and transmit them. Thinking is an ideal system. If the main elements of language are letters, words, phrases and sentences, then the elements of thinking are individual forms of thought (concepts, judgments, conclusions) and their combinations.

Natural language is a system of signs. When considering language as a system of signs, it is important to take into account three main aspects of language: syntax, semantics and pragmatics.

Syntactic aspect includes the variety of relationships of signs to other signs, the rules in the language for the formation of some signs from others, and the rules for changing signs.

Semantic aspect constitutes a set of relations of signs to objects of extra-linguistic reality, that is, to what they designate.

Pragmatic aspect includes all such features of the language that depend on who and in what situations it is used.

Based on the principle of objectivity of knowledge, in science they strive to exclude, when determining the semantic contents of linguistic expressions and when describing cognitive procedures, any possible influence of the subjective characteristics of cognizing people. There should be no, for example, uncertainties or ambiguities in the expression of thoughts in language. These requirements are met by specially constructed logical formalized languages.

The main goal of logic is to clarify the conditions for the truth of knowledge and develop effective cognitive procedures. Knowledge of logic improves the culture of thinking, promotes clarity, consistency and evidence of reasoning, enhances the effectiveness and persuasiveness of speech. Logical culture is not an innate quality. Logical culture is formed as a result of careful study of logic and accumulation of experience in the practical application of logical knowledge.

Logic is of great importance in the development and organization of the information process. Failure to comply with logical form and logical sequence in information processes is fraught with negative consequences in various spheres of human life and society.

Control questions:

Define logic as a science.

What is the difference between traditional logic and symbolic logic?

Who is the founder of logic?

What basic aspects of language do you know?

What principles form the basis of non-classical logic?

Which practical significance has the study of logic?

Name the main forms of thought.

Topic 2. Concept

After studying the topic materials, you will be able to:

understand the logical methods of forming concepts;

give a logical characterization of any concept, based on the classification of concepts;

determine the relationships between concepts by volume;

understand the essence of such logical operations on concepts as generalization, limitation, division and definition;

name the logical errors that arise when the rules of division and definition are violated.

understand the meaning of operations with classes.

A concept is a form of thought that reflects general, essential and specific characteristics of objects, phenomena, and processes.

The formation of a concept is possible through the use of such logical techniques as analysis, synthesis, abstraction, and generalization. Analysis– mental division of objects into their component parts, mental identification of features in them (i.e. properties and relationships). Synthesis- mental combination into a single whole of parts of an object or its characteristics obtained in the process of analysis, which is carried out both in practical activity and in the process of cognition. Abstraction- mental selection, isolation of individual features, properties, connections and relationships of interest to us of a particular object or phenomenon and mental abstraction of them from many other signs, properties, connections and relationships of this object. Generalization– mental selection of some properties belonging to a certain class of objects; transition from the individual to the general, from the less general to the more general.

When getting acquainted with the doctrine of the concept, it is important to clearly understand that the concept as a thought is not identical to either the word that expresses it or the object that it reflects.

A concept has only two elements of its structure - content and volume. Volume is a set of objects of thought united in a concept. Content– a set of attributes of objects united in a concept. There is the following relationship between the volume and content of a concept: the greater the volume, the less the content; The smaller the volume, the greater the content.

Isolating the elements of the structure of a concept and becoming familiar with their features and properties makes it possible to consider the types of concepts, the relationships between them and, finally, operations on concepts.

In count concepts are divided into general, isolated and “empty”. General are concepts whose scope contains two or more elements. For example, the concept of “book”. Single are concepts whose scope contains only one element. For example, the concept of “Russian Museum”. In fact, all proper names are singular concepts. Empty Concepts are concepts whose scope does not contain a single element. For example, the concept of “koschey the immortal” or the concept of “square circle”.

By quality concepts are divided into positive, negative, concrete, abstract, correlative and non-relative, comparable, incomparable, collective and separative, registering, non-registering.

Positive concepts are concepts that indicate the presence of a particular quality or relationship in an object. For example, the concept of “decency”. Negative concepts are concepts that indicate the absence of some quality or relation in an object. For example, the concept of “futility”.

Specific concepts are concepts that reflect objects. For example, the concept of “house”. Abstract concepts are concepts that reflect the properties and relationships between objects. For example, the concept of “height”.

Collective concepts are concepts whose attributes relate not to each element of the set, but to the entire set as a whole. For example, the concept of “platoon”. Separating concepts are concepts whose attributes relate to each element of a set of objects. For example, the concept of “soldier”.

Correlative concept is a concept whose content represents the presence or absence of a relationship between an object conceived in it and some other object. In the correlative concept, an object is conceived that determines the existence of another object. For example, the concept of “boss” determines the existence of the concept of “subordinate”. Irrelevant concept is a concept whose content is not connected by any relationship, where conceivable objects(features) exist completely independently, independently of other objects (properties). For example, the concept of “pencil”.

Comparable Concepts are concepts whose contents are closely related. For example, the concept of “man” and the concept of “living being”. Incomparable Concepts are concepts that have a distant connection in content. For example, the concepts “picture” and “mole” are incomparable concepts.

Registrants are called concepts in which the multitude of elements conceivable in it can be taken into account and registered (at least in principle). For example, “heroes of the Soviet Union”, “month”. Registering concepts have a finite scope. Non-registering concepts that relate to an indefinite number of elements are called. Thus, in the concepts of “machine” and “paper” the multitude of elements conceivable in them cannot be counted: all people, all cats are conceivable in them. Non-registering concepts have an infinite scope.

Relations between concepts are relations between types of concepts. Relationships between concepts are compatible And incompatible.

Compatible concepts are concepts whose scopes partially or completely coincide. Compatibility relationships: identity, subordination, intersection. Identical concepts are concepts whose scopes completely coincide. Subordinates concepts are concepts whose volumes have such a relationship that the volume of one of the concepts is completely included in the volume of the other, but does not coincide with it. Subordinate concepts reflect generic relations. Crossed(in relation to intersection) concepts are concepts whose scopes partially coincide.

Incompatible concepts are concepts whose volumes do not have common elements. Relationships of incompatibility: contradiction, opposition, subordination. Subordinates concepts are concepts whose scopes exclude each other, but at the same time are included in the scope of some broader (generic) concept. Contradictory concepts are concepts that are species of a certain genus, the characteristics of which are mutually exclusive, and the sum of their volumes exhausts the volume of the generic concept. Opposite concepts are concepts that are included in the scope of some generic concept and the scopes of which are mutually exclusive. The volumes of opposite concepts in their totality do not exhaust the volume of the generic concept.

For better memorization and orientation in these relationships, it is customary to depict all types of relationships using Euler circles.

The course in formal logic is aimed at demonstrating the connection between natural language and thinking, the laws of the latter from the point of view of its structural organization, and the possibility of constructing logical calculus. It is built on the basis of traditional Aristotelian logic and propositional logic, and ends with the theory of argumentation.

About the course

The course is devoted to the structural, or formal, side of our thinking. It is basic, showing the relationship between thinking and language, the ideal content of the first and its material organization through the second.

This course is about why we, having accepted certain statements as initial and true, can and should come not to just any, but to a very definite – the only possible – conclusion.

Format

The course contains 19 topics. Each topic contains three sections - lecture, practical lesson, independent work. The lecture section includes a video, presentation, notes, glossary, test and list of recommended literature. Chapter " Practical lesson"consists of methodological recommendations, examples of problem solving, the actual tasks and a list of references to which you can refer. Independent work involves one task aimed at solving non-standard problems or studying material on a topic that is not included in the lecture and practical lesson.

Requirements

Does not require special training

Course program

The course program includes 19 thematic lessons, each of which includes lecture material, practical assignments and assignments for the student’s independent work:

1. Subject and meaning of logic
2. Concept as a form of thinking
3. Logical operations with concepts
4. Judgment as a form of thinking
5. Logical analysis of questions
6. Complex judgment
7. Operations on complex judgments
8. Logical square
9. Logical law
10. Modal propositions
11. Inference as a form of thinking
12. Direct deductive reasoning
13. Simple categorical syllogism
14. Complex and abbreviated syllogisms
15. Deductive reasoning from complex premises
16. Non-deductive reasoning
17. Problem, hypothesis and theory and their place in scientific knowledge
18. Proof and refutation
19. Argumentation strategy and tactics

Learning outcomes

The ability to isolate the logical structure of natural language thinking and manipulate it according to the rules of logic. The skill of building argumentation in different ways. Detection Skill logical errors in reasoning.

Formed competencies

OK-5: ability to communicate orally and in writing in Russian and foreign languages to solve problems of interpersonal and intercultural interaction;

OK-7: ability for self-organization and self-education;

GPC-4: ability to carry out business communication and public speaking, conduct negotiations, meetings, carry out business correspondence and maintain electronic communications

Logic is interesting, of course, in itself, as a pure theory. But anyone who intends to receive practical benefits from studying this science must learn to connect logic and the theory of argumentation, to apply logical laws and operations in the process of communication.

Logical culture, which is an important part of the general human culture, includes many components. But the most important of them, connecting, as in an optical focus, all other components, is the ability to reason reasonably.

The requirement for knowledge to be justified is usually called the “principle of sufficient reason.” It is sometimes claimed that this principle was first formulated by German philosopher and logician G. Leibniz. This is an inaccurate statement, since the requirement for the validity of knowledge was expressed in a fairly clear form by Plato and Aristotle, although it did not receive its own name in ancient times.

Rationale for the statement - the procedure for bringing those convincing or sufficient grounds (arguments)), by virtue of which the justified statement must be accepted.

Argumentation theory - a complex discipline that explores the variety of ways to persuade a listener (audience) With using speech influence.

The theory of argumentation analyzes and explains the hidden mechanisms of the “inconspicuous art” of speech influence within a wide variety of communication systems - from scientific and judicial evidence to political propaganda, artistic language and trade advertising.

You can influence the beliefs of listeners or spectators not only through speech, verbally expressed arguments, but also in many other ways: gesture, facial expressions, etc. Even silence in certain cases turns out to be a fairly compelling argument. These methods of influencing beliefs are studied by psychology, art theory, etc., but are not affected by the theory of argumentation.

In addition, beliefs can be influenced by violence, hypnosis, suggestion, subconscious stimulation, medications, drugs, etc. Psychology also deals with these methods of influence, but they clearly go beyond the scope of even the widely interpreted theory of argumentation.

Argumentation - is the presentation of arguments to change the position or beliefs of the other party (audience).

An argument, or argument, is one or more related statements. The argument is intended to support the thesis of the argument - a statement that the arguing party finds it necessary to instill in the audience, to make an integral part of its beliefs.

The word “argumentation” often refers not only to the procedure for presenting arguments in support of a position, but also to the very totality of such arguments.

“Argumentation,” writes American expert in the field of persuasion theory G. Johnston, “is an all-pervasive feature of human life. This does not mean that there are not cases in which a person is susceptible to hypnosis, subliminal stimulation, drugs, brainwashing and physical force, and that there are not cases in which he can properly control the actions and views of people by means other than argumentation. However, only a person who can be called inhumane will take pleasure in influencing the behavior of other people only by non-argumentative means, and only an idiot will willingly obey him. We don't even have power over people when we only manipulate them. We can dominate people only by treating them as people.”

Argumentation is a speech act that includes a system of statements intended to substantiate or refute an opinion. It is addressed primarily to the mind of a person who is able, after reasoning, to accept or reject this opinion.

Thus, the argumentation is characterized by the following features:

• argumentation is always expressed in language, in the form of spoken or written statements; the theory of argumentation examines the relationships between these statements, and not the thoughts, ideas, motives, etc. that stand behind them;
• argumentation is a goal-directed activity: it has as its goal the change, strengthening or weakening of someone's beliefs;
• argumentation is a social activity, since it is aimed at another person or other people, involves dialogue and an active reaction of the other party to the arguments presented;
• argumentation presupposes the intelligence of those who perceive it, their ability to rationally weigh arguments, accept them or challenge them.

Persuasion is studied by many sciences: psychology, logic, linguistics, philosophy, the theory of social communication, etc. A special place among them is occupied by the theory of argumentation, which systematizes and generalizes what other disciplines say about persuasion, answering questions about ways to substantiate and refute beliefs, the dependence of these methods on the audience and the problem under discussion, on the originality of justification in different areas of thinking and activity - from the natural and human sciences to ideology, propaganda and art, etc.

Conviction is the belief that a certain statement (position) should be accepted due to existing reasons.

The subject of persuasion can be not only a separate statement, but also a complete system of statements: a message about some events, evidence, concept, theory, etc.

Conviction does not coincide with either truth or faith, which is devoid of any clear foundation (“blind faith”). When a statement is true, the situation it describes actually exists. But just because a statement represents someone's belief does not mean that anything actually corresponds to it. Unlike pure faith, which can serve as its own basis, belief presupposes a certain basis. The latter may be weak, fantastic or even internally contradictory, but nevertheless it must exist.

The relationship between knowledge, belief and faith can be represented as follows (Fig. 12.1).

Rice. 12.1

Conviction is thus a belief that has certain grounds. It is located between knowledge and pure or, as they more often say, blind faith, which does not presuppose any grounds. Neutrality is the absence of belief or disbelief about a particular fact or event. Everything that we don’t think about at all and the attitude towards which remains unclear or uninteresting for us is neutral.

The opposite of knowledge is delusion. The opposite of belief is doubt, the opposite of faith is unbelief.

Truth and goodness may be intermediate goals of argumentation, but its ultimate task is to convince the audience of the justice of the position proposed to its attention, to persuade it to accept this position and, possibly, to take the action suggested by it. This means that the oppositions truth - false and good - evil, important for other areas of knowledge, are not key either in the argumentation or, accordingly, in its theory. Arguments can be given not only in support of theses that appear to be true, but also in support of obviously false or vague theses. Not only good and justice can be defended with reason, but also what seems or later turns out to be evil.

The reasons for accepting a statement can be very different. Some statements are accepted because they seem to be true descriptions of the real state of affairs, others - as useful tips, others - as effective assessments or norms, etc. It is impossible to create a complete list of grounds for accepting statements or their groups. There is also no, even preliminary, classification of such grounds. People’s beliefs, that is, their beliefs, which have known foundations, are as diverse and changeable as the world itself. human life, into whose fabric they are always woven.

At the same time, there are certain techniques that make it possible, with varying probability, to induce a person to accept some statements and reject others. The theory of argumentation is the study of these techniques, or methods, of persuasion.

Among such well-known devices are reference to empirical data, existing logical proof, certain methodological considerations, time-honored tradition, particularly insightful intuition or sincere faith, common sense or taste, causality or the relationship of ends and means, etc.

The theory of argumentation is not concerned with finding out why certain people or groups of people share any specific - reasonable or, on the contrary, absurd - beliefs. Its task is to explore and systematize techniques, or methods, of reasoning with which one can try to convince an individual or group of people of the necessity or advisability of accepting certain statements.

Types of argumentation are distinguished according to various criteria. The most important are the following types of argumentation found in dialogue situations.

1. Proof - a type of argumentation in which the thesis is logically deduced from arguments whose truth has already been established; Thus, the proof forces one to admit the truth of the thesis.

You have to prove something in different communication situations. Moreover, the content of thoughts whose truth needs to be substantiated is different in each case. Logic finds something in common that is characteristic of all proofs, regardless of one or another specific content of the latter. Based on the knowledge of the general thing that underlies the connection and combination of thoughts in the process of proof, it is possible to derive some rules that are valid in all cases of proof. Common to all cases are the structure of the proof, its methods, and the general requirements for the idea being proven, with the help of which the position being proven is justified.

According to the method of conducting evidence, there are direct and indirect. In direct proof, the thesis directly follows from the arguments found. With indirect evidence, they take a roundabout route, namely, they establish the falsity of a statement that is in some logical relation to the thesis, which then allows us to talk about the truth of the thesis. The types of indirect evidence are:

a) apagogical proof (Latin apagoge - leading away, leading away), in which the falsity of the antithesis is established, i.e. a statement contradicting the thesis. This justification takes place in cases where there are no arguments for direct proof. With such proof, indirect proof is carried out, as if directed to the side; instead of arguments that directly and positively confirm the truth of a judgment, the temporary truth of a judgment that contradicts the thesis is allowed, from which consequences leading to a contradiction are drawn. On this basis, the conclusion is made that the contradictory proposition is false, and therefore the proposition being proved is true. This path in mathematics is called “proof by contradiction.”

This is how Democritus refuted the thesis that “Everything is true.” After all, if someone believes that not everything is true, then this thesis will be true, and thus the position that “Everything is true” turns out to be false. Democritus also refuted the statement that “Everything is false.” For if everything is false, then everything is false;

b) disjunctive proof establishes the truth of the thesis by excluding all alternatives opposing it.

For example, it is known that either A, or B, or C (and no one else) committed this crime. Then, evidence is consistently presented that neither A nor B could have done this. Thus, it is proven that C committed the crime. The only important thing here is that all possible options have been exhausted, that is, that the disjunction be complete, “closed.”

Evidence is also divided into progressive and regressive. In a progressive proof, the progression of reasoning goes from foundations to consequences. Regressive proof (Latin regredior - going backwards) is a proof in which the course of reasoning goes from consequences to foundations. Among all types of evidence, conditional evidence should be clearly distinguished, in which the idea being proven is raised to its foundation, and the foundation itself is accepted as true only under a certain certain condition.

2. A refutation establishes the falsity of the thesis. Refutation can proceed in two ways:

refutation by proving the antithesis (a statement that contradicts the thesis being refuted is independently proven);

refutation of a thesis by establishing the falsity of the consequences arising from it (“reduction to absurdity”).

Refuting your opponent’s thesis is the most effective move to promote dialogue.

on the path to truth. However, sometimes it is easier and more convenient to direct efforts against the opponent’s arguments or point out the lack of the necessary logical connection between his thesis and arguments. It should be borne in mind that refuting arguments or demonstrations weakens the thesis, but does not make it necessarily false. In other words, refuting arguments, like refuting a demonstration, does not mean refuting the thesis.

In a trial, an example of rebuttal is the defense's defense of the innocence of the accused. By the way, in this last example the whole relativity of the opposition between proof and refutation is especially clearly visible. The presumption of innocence is the recognition of a fact as legally reliable until the contrary is proven. Therefore, proof of guilt

- This is, in essence, a denial of innocence.

3. Confirmation consists in deducing true consequences from a given hypothetical situation. It plays a special role in cases where hypotheses are involved in the dialogue, i.e. positions the truth of which has not yet been properly established and there are no sufficient arguments for their acceptance. When confirming the thesis

its consequences act as arguments;

the demonstration is not of a necessary (deductive) nature.

4. Objection (challenge) is aimed at weakening the thesis. There are the following ways to build an objection:

refuting the arguments put forward in favor of the thesis;

refutation of demonstration as a logical connection between thesis and arguments;

confirmation of the antithesis.

An objection based on a solid foundation of logic and facts makes the thesis unproven or requires clarification.

Proof, refutation, confirmation and objection form a unique

“logical square”, similar to that which was considered in the analysis of relations

between attributive judgments.

In this case, Др means “it has been proven that p”, Op means “it has been refuted that p”,

Pr – “it is confirmed that p”, Вр – “it is disputed that p”.

Other types of argumentation are beyond the scope of this diagram.

5. An explanation of a certain phenomenon is an indication of what cause it is, or the disclosure of its essential characteristics. The arguments are laws or their combinations

(scientific theories), as well as statements about the causes of certain phenomena. Demonstration, like proof, is deductive. A significant difference from proof is that if at the beginning of the latter the truth of the thesis is not established, then at the beginning of the explanation it is considered as given and is not questioned.

6. Interpretation in logic is the attribution of some meaningful meaning or meaning to the symbols and formulas of a formal system; the formal system is not

is justified until it has no interpretation, that is, it has not been turned into a language describing a particular subject area. Another, broader meaning of the term “interpretation” is the interpretation of the meaning of a particular sentence, historical source, work of art, etc. Interpretation in this sense is a necessary component of the communication process. The method of interpretation is various probabilistic conclusions, analogies, etc.

7. Justification is applied to some action, practical or mental. To justify an action means to provide as an argument some value consideration, that is, a statement about what we should strive for, what is our duty, preference, ideal. Justification is the closest thing to explanation. They are deductive conclusions, their theses are reliable judgments. The difference lies in the modality of theses and arguments: in the case of explanation, they represent alethic judgments, while justification includes axiological judgments. It is obvious that in many cases justificatory arguments are subjective in nature (accepted in one social environment, they are not applied in another).

It is also obvious that in different communicative situations different types of argumentation come to the fore.

Which of them would you prefer in an academic lecture, speech at a rally, at a court hearing, in a domestic dispute, educational conversation, etc.?

§ 6. Rules and errors in argumentation

In the process of argumentation, a variety of methods of inference are used, the logical rules of which must be followed. But in addition to these specific rules, there are rules of argumentation that formulate the requirements for its components– to the thesis, arguments and methods of constructing evidence (demonstration). In themselves, these rules are quite trivial, but their formulation is intended to prevent some typical errors of a logical nature found in argumentation, which are by no means trivial.

Thesis rules. The thesis is the central point of proof, so the requirements are placed primarily on it.

1. The thesis being proven must be true.

2. The thesis must be strictly defined, precise, and clear. The accuracy of the formulation of a judgment means an explicit indication of all its semantic aspects:

If the judgment is simple, then its logical subject (subject) and logical predicate (predicate) must be distinguished;

If any of the subjects is represented general concept, then we need its exact quantitative characteristics (all, some); – the modal characteristics of the judgment should also be clear;

When formulating complex judgments, the logical nature of the logical connectives that unite them must be clear.

The precise formulation of a thesis is an operation that includes three procedures: precision of formulation for the speaker, clarity of formulation for the listener, and combination of the first and second in a single text. The first operation involves carefully selecting each word in the short text of the thesis (and a thesis is, as a rule, a short text), as well as placing each word in a strictly defined place in the text. At the second and third stages, a lot of mutual misunderstanding arises, based, in particular, on ignorance or different interpretations of the lexical units used. Aristotle also pointed out that persons starting a discussion of any issue must first come to an agreement regarding the concepts used in order to understand them as the same thing.

The accuracy of the formulation is also determined by the special linguistic property of almost all languages ​​of the world; We are talking about syntactic homonymy (some researchers in this case talk about syntactic polysemy), as a result of which the same text can have several levels of reading, both superficial and deeper, which are usually called subtext. Often, homonymy, like polysemy, is easily removed by the immediate context, since the choice of meaning is often determined by compatibility with other words. Consider, for example, the set of meanings of the word “field”:

1) treeless space (“picking flowers in the field”);

2) land cultivated for sowing (“rye field”);

3) a flat area, specially equipped for something (“football field”);

4) space within which the action of some forces is manifested (“electromagnetic field”);

5) a blank line on the edge of a book or manuscript (“marginal notes”);

6) the edges of the headdress (“wide-brimmed hat”).

The minimal context determines the implementation of one or another meaning of a word. With syntactic homonymy (polysemy), the exact meaning can only be determined in a broad context, and even then not always.

3. The thesis must remain the same throughout the entire proof.

In classical logic and rhetoric there is a term “keep a thesis”. In a short speech it is much easier to maintain a thesis than in a long speech, but this also requires some effort. In the process of argumentation, there may be a need for some clarification, specification of the thesis, and generally making some amendments to the original position, but all such adjustments must be accurately recorded.

Mistakes made regarding the thesis.

Inaccuracy, ambiguity of the thesis.

All concepts used in formulating a thesis must be disclosed and clear for both the opponent and the audience. Moreover, the meaning of the concepts used should be perceived equally by all participants in the argumentation process.

Here are examples of double interpretation of phrases like:

1. “Mother loves daughter” (where it is unclear who loves whom).

2. “There was a portrait of Repin hanging on the wall” (it is unclear whether it was a portrait painted by Repin or his image in the portrait).

3. “The boy was dressed as a clown” (it is unclear whether he was wearing a clown costume or whether he was dressed by a clown).

4. “The commission’s response was submitted by October 1” (it is unclear whether the commission responded or was answered).

The homonymy in these examples is mainly due to the non-distinction of subject-object relations. But there are also much more complex texts that are interpreted differently by different people.

Violation of thesis identity.

The most common and typical errors are the following:

- “loss of thesis.” Having formulated a thesis, the proponent begins to substantiate another position, indirectly or directly related to the first, but in principle different.

A common example of losing a thesis statement occurs in written works, such as essays. A topic is given, the student writes an essay that does not fully or partially correspond to this topic. In such cases they usually say: “The topic is not covered.” It must be said that there are a lot of written works in which the loss of the thesis is visible. You can often see a similar error in the press, where the title (and this is the thesis) often does not correspond to the text of the article at all.

The reason for the loss of a thesis can be not only a mental failure, but also a person’s conscious desire to answer the wrong question that was asked to him, to write on the wrong topic that is indicated, and to prove the wrong thesis that was formulated. In this case, they talk about replacing the thesis. Substitution of a thesis is a deliberate loss of it.

– “substitution of the thesis” (from Latin ignoratio elenchi - literally: ignorance of the refutation). This error manifests itself in the fact that the proponent is completely (loss of thesis) or partially

deliberately replaces it with another. With a partial change in the thesis, it is possible to change the modality of the judgment, its volume, introduce concepts that allow different interpretations, etc.

The thesis may be narrowed, in which case it remains unproven. For example, to prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles, it is not enough to prove that this sum is not more than 180°. To justify that a person should be honest, it is not enough to prove that a reasonable person should not lie. The thesis can also be expanded. In this case, additional reasons are needed. And it may turn out that from them follows not only the original thesis, but also some other, no longer acceptable, statement.

“He who proves too much proves nothing” - this old Latin proverb has precisely this danger in mind.

Sometimes there is a complete substitution of the thesis. Usually this error is obscured by some circumstances related to a particular situation, and therefore escapes attention.

Let's give the following examples.

1. When giving a Russian citizen a transit visa, employees of the Finnish embassy in Sweden want to be sure that he has a return ticket to Russia (for a ferry, train or plane). A man hands his passport to an embassy official. He asks him: “Do you have a ticket for the ferry?” Pretending that he does not understand the reason for the question, the person asks the embassy employee a counter-bewildered question: “Is it difficult to get tickets at this time of year?”

2. A correspondent asks a member of the Russian government: “Do you think Russia will be able to quickly overcome the economic crisis?” He answers: “You cannot live without faith...”

Substitution of the thesis usually occurs in long speeches, when it is easier to replace one position with another, which was discussed a considerable time ago. However, this trick is also used in the question-answer system. Substitution of the thesis as such is one of the characteristic features of speeches of a certain type. For example this characteristic diplomatic speech, and this is specially taught. They teach you how to replace a thesis, but to do it elegantly, very implicitly, when you don’t directly understand that the person is not answering your question or making a comment on a topic that is not the one he was asked to talk about. This is a professional skill.

If the substitution of the thesis goes too far and leads into a completely different area, then this error is called “transition to another gender.” For example, evidence from the legal sphere is transferred to the moral sphere and, instead of the illegality or wrongfulness of an act, they suddenly begin to justify its immorality.

From a communication point of view various situations E. N. Zaretskaya in her book “Speech Logic for a Manager” presents the problems associated with the considered logical error as follows:

ignoratio elenchi

(substitution of thesis)

unconscious reaction conscious reaction

Loss of thesis Substitution of thesis

can't don't want to answer answer

contempt

leniency analysis of the reasons for reluctance

The rules regarding arguments require:

1. Arguments must be true or proven propositions.

2. The truth of the arguments must be proven regardless of the thesis.

3. Arguments must be sufficiently substantiated to serve as confirmation of the thesis; This rule applies to probabilistic (plausible) inferences.

When these rules are violated, several types of errors occur. One of these errors is the “fundamental error” (from the Latin error fundamentalis). It is associated with a violation of the rule of truth of arguments and boils down to the fact that a false argument is accepted as true. But you cannot draw a conclusion from false premises.

Tigers, as you know, do not fly. But the reasoning “Only birds fly; tigers are not birds; therefore, tigers do not fly” is, of course, not proof of this fact. The reasoning uses the incorrect premise that only birds can fly: many insects, and mammals (for example, bats), and airplanes, etc. fly. Using the premise “Only birds fly,” one can derive not only a true, but also a false conclusion Let's say that cockchafers, since they are not birds, do not fly.

The analysis shows that different communicative situations, defined by the category of truth, form different causes of speech damage in argumentation, and thus, “false grounds” should be understood not as one error, but as a whole class of errors. From the point of view of truth in speech, four possibilities can be distinguished:

1) the thesis is true, and the speaker believes in it;

2) the thesis is true, but the speaker does not believe in it;

3) the thesis is false, but the speaker believes in it;

4) the thesis is false, and the speaker does not believe in it.

The division into real truth and perception truth is possible and turns out to be useful, since in different situations of the four above arguments fail for various reasons. Consider each of these situations, give examples, and find out what are the reasons for failure in argumentation.

Another error is “anticipation of the reason” (petitio principi). It is also allowed if the rule of truth of grounds is violated. And it consists in the fact that provisions whose truth has not yet been proven are used as grounds.

The third error is “circulus in demonstrando”. It represents a violation of the rule of independent arguments. Its essence is that the validity of the proven position is justified by means of the same provision, expressed, perhaps in a slightly different form, according to the principle: “This cannot be, because this

can never happen." If something that still needs to be proven is taken as the basis of the argument, the thought being justified is deduced from itself, and the result is not proof, but empty walking in a circle.

We find a peculiar device of a circle in proof in Kozma Prutkov: “If you are asked: what is more useful, the sun or the month? - answer: month. For the sun shines during the day, when it is already light; and the month is at night. But on the other hand: the sun the better, which shines and warms, and the month only shines, and then only on a moonlit night.”

J. B. Moliere so aptly ridiculed this type of mistake: the father of a mute girl wanted to know why his daughter was mute. “Nothing could be simpler,” the doctor answered, “it depends on the fact that she has lost the ability to speak.” “Of course, of course,” objected the girl’s father, “but please tell me, for what reason did she lose the ability to speak?” “All our best authors will tell you,” answered the physician, “that this depends on the inability to act with the tongue.”

“Circle in proof” is based on tautology (tauto - the same thing, logos - word), when what was previously said is used as an argument in a different, sometimes even similar verbal form. This is how texts appear that look something like this: “The brigade has achieved great success at work because it worked successfully.” This logical fallacy is very common, especially in the media.

There are a few points to make about the sufficiency requirement for arguing a thesis. The argumentation must be sufficient for the people to whom it is directed. It is important to understand that the measure of sufficiency is not the same for different people. Ignoring this circumstance can lead to errors in the argumentative process.

This means that when a speaker undertakes to convince, say, ten people simultaneously of the truth of a certain thesis, then some people will be convinced after presenting one or two arguments, others will intellectually resist longer, some even longer, etc. Thus, the sufficiency changes depending on the mentality of the listener. There are people who are more amenable to argumentation; there are people who internally agree with the speaker’s thesis, but are not fully aware of their agreement; there are those who have strong counterarguments, and there are people who simply do not like the speaker, and due to this dislike for him, everything he says causes counter-rejection - all these are different communicative situations. The level of sufficiency of argumentation is always individual. Sufficiency is not a constant, it is a variable, and its meaning is determined by many factors depending on the specific personality of the listener.

Finally, there is another series of errors: “argument to a person”, “argument to a crowd”, “argument to force”,

“argument to ignorance”, etc. They somehow manifest a violation of the rule of necessity and sufficiency of arguments, and also use incorrect methods of argumentation (see the section “Tricks of a socio-psychological nature” for more details).

The rules relating to the demonstration of the thesis require that in all cases of argumentation the thesis follows from the arguments as premises, according to the generally accepted rules of logical inference (it is worth recalling once again the rules of deductive and inductive inferences, reasoning by analogy). These rules transfer the truth of the premises to the truth of the conclusion.

The main mistake is “not to” (non sequitur). It means that there is no necessary logical connection between the arguments and the thesis, the rule of consequence, which is important for any conclusion, is not observed.

Let’s say someone thinks like this: “If I visit my uncle, he will give me a camera; when my uncle gives me a camera, I will sell it and buy a bicycle; that means if I visit my uncle, I’ll sell it and buy a bicycle.” It is clear that this is an untenable reasoning. His conclusion about “selling his uncle” is absurd. But the messages are harmless and may well be sincere, so they are not the source of concern. The reason for the error is in deduction itself, in deducing from accepted statements something that was not implied in them at all. Deduction from correct premises always produces a correct conclusion. In this case the conclusion is false. This means that the conclusion is not based on the law of logic. Error

simple. The pronoun "him" can refer to different things. In the sentence “I will sell it and buy a bicycle,” it should refer to a camera. But it turns out that it actually refers to the uncle.

To refute this incorrect reasoning, it is necessary to show that there is no logical connection between the accepted premises and the conclusion drawn on their basis.

The German physicist W. Nernst, who discovered the third law of thermodynamics (about the unattainability of absolute zero temperature), “proved” the completion of the development of the fundamental laws of this branch of physics: “The first law had three authors: Mayer, Joule and Helmholtz; the second has two: Carnot and Clausius, and the third has only one - Nernst. Consequently, the number of authors of the fourth law of thermodynamics must be zero, that is, such a law simply cannot exist.”

This comic proof well illustrates the situation when there is clearly no logical connection between the arguments and the thesis. The illusion of a kind of “logical” reasoning is created by a purely external enumeration to the essence of the matter.

Wire was found in the tomb of Egyptian pharaohs. On this basis, one "Egyptologist"

suggested that in Ancient Egypt The telegraph was famous. Hearing about this, another

The “researcher” concluded that since no wire was found in the tombs of the Assyrian kings, wireless telegraphy was already known in Ancient Assyria.

The assumption of the “Egyptologist” - if this is not a joke - is obvious absurdity. Even greater stupidity - if again this is not a joke - is the conclusion of the “Assyrologist”. And of course, there is no logical connection between this “assumption” and the “conclusion” seemingly made on its basis.

There are – and quite often – chaotic and amorphous reasoning. Outwardly they take the form of evidence and even pretend to be taken into account. They contain the words “thus”, “therefore”, “means” and similar ones, designed to indicate the logical connection of the arguments and the position being proven. But these reasonings are not actually evidence, since logical connections are replaced in them by psychological associations.

Varieties of this basic error can be considered the following: “imaginary following”,

“from what is said in a relative sense to what is said in an absolute sense”, “from a collective sense to a divisive one”, etc.

We have highlighted only the basic rules of argumentation that relate to its components, pointing out the errors that arise when they are violated. It is obvious that in real proof during a dispute or polemic, they all interact with each other, so that violation, for example, of the requirements for arguments affects not only the thesis, but also the way of demonstrating the latter.

Logical errors can be unintentional or intentional (tricks). The first arise due to an unconscious violation of the rules of logic, and are called paralogisms. Among the tricks of disputes - possible conscious deviations from the normal principles of scientific and rational conduct of dispute - on the one hand, there are tricks of a logical nature, on the other - tricks of a socio-psychological and organizational-procedural nature. Tricks of a logical nature are called sophisms. Sophisms are deliberate, consciously made mistakes designed to mislead the enemy, present a lie as the truth, and thereby achieve victory in the dispute. We can say that a trick is a technique that is deliberately used in order to make it difficult for one’s opponent to conduct an argument and to make it easier for oneself.

The multitude of possible sophisms can hardly be listed, since every rule and principle of logic can correspond to a possible sophistical violation of it. However, the history of logic has recorded some special, ingenious

ways of misleading people or at least forming logical puzzles. F. Bacon compared the one who resorts to sophisms with a fox that twists well, and the one who reveals sophisms with a hound who knows how to untangle tracks.

In order to successfully cope with the sophisms encountered in the process of argumentation, you must have a good knowledge of the subject under discussion and have certain skills in logical analysis of reasoning, be able to notice the logical errors made by your opponent and convincingly reveal the inconsistency of his arguments.

Let us consider typical sophisms and use specific examples to show those common violations of the requirements of logic that underlie them.

1. In one of his dialogues, Plato describes how two ancient sophists entangle a simple-minded man named Ctesippus.

Tell me, do you have a dog?

And very angry,” answers Ctesippus.

Does she have any puppies?

Yes, they are also evil.

And their father, of course, is a dog?

I even saw him having sex with a female.

And this father is also yours?

Certainly.

So you claim that your father is a dog, and you are the puppies' brother!

It’s funny, if not to Ctesippus, then to everyone around him, because such conversations usually took place in front of a large crowd of people.

What was the trick that stumped Ctesippus? Here the conclusion does not follow from the accepted

parcels. To be convinced of this, it is enough to slightly reformulate the premises without changing their content: “This dog belongs to you; he is the father." What can you take away from this information? Only the statement “This dog belongs to you and he is your father,” but not “He is your father.”

2. “What you didn’t lose, you have. You didn't lose your horns. Therefore, you are horned."

The sophistry of “Horned” plays on the ambiguity of the expression “that which was not lost.” Sometimes it means “that which one did not have and did not lose,” and sometimes it simply means “that which one did not lose, whether one had it or not.” You can, for example, ask a person: “Have you lost your umbrella?”, without knowing in advance whether he had an umbrella or not. In the premise “What you did not lose, you have,” the phrase “what you did not lose” must mean “what you had and did not lose,” otherwise this premise will be false. But this meaning no longer applies to the second premise: the statement “Horns are what you had and did not lose” is false.

3. Here are a few more sophisms for independent reflection.

- “The one sitting stood up. He who stands up stands. Therefore, the one sitting is standing.”

- “Do you know what I want to ask you now?

- No, we don’t know.

– Don’t you know that lying is bad?

- Of course we know.

“But that’s exactly what I was going to ask you about, and you answered that you didn’t know; it turns out you know what you don’t know!”

The use of sophisms for the purpose of deception makes one treat them with condemnation. However, we should not forget that sophistry is not only a technique of intellectual fraud. They can also play another role. Very often sophisms pose in an implicit form the problem of proof. Formulated at a time when the science of logic did not yet exist, ancient sophisms directly raised the question of the need for its construction. Just to the extent that this is generally possible for the sophistic way of posing problems. It was with sophisms that the understanding and study of proof and refutation began. And in this regard, sophisms directly contributed to the emergence of a special science of correct, demonstrative thinking.

When reading the works of Aristotle “Topika”, A. Schopenhauer “Eristic Dialectics”, S. Povarnin “Dispute. On the theory and practice of dispute”, P. Sergeich “The Art of Argument in Court” (see Logic. Logical foundations of communication: Reader), A. A. Ivina

“Fundamentals of the Theory of Argumentation” you will see that tricks of a logical nature are accompanied by other deliberate violations of the rules of dispute, discussion, and controversy.

Tricks of a socio-psychological nature do not concern the content of the provisions being discussed, but primarily the personalities of those who put forward these provisions or refute them. Some of these incorrect argumentation techniques, which are used quite often, have received their own names.

Argument to the public - instead of justifying the truth or falsity of a thesis with objective arguments, they try to rely on the opinions, feelings and moods of listeners. Using this argument, a person turns not to his partner in the dispute, but to other participants or even random listeners, and seeks to win them over to his side, appealing primarily to their feelings, rather than to reason.

Argument to the individual - such shortcomings, real or only imaginary, are attributed to the enemy, which present him in a funny light, cast a shadow on his mental capacity, undermine the credibility of his reasoning.

An argument to the masses is an attempt to excite and electrify a wide range of people, using their group egoism, national or racial prejudices, false promises, etc. This argument, also called demagoguery, is widely used in political disputes.

Argument to a person - in support of one’s position, reasons are given that are put forward by the opposing party in the dispute or arising from the provisions adopted by it.

An argument for vanity is lavishing excessive praise on an opponent in a dispute in the hope that, touched by compliments, he will become softer and more accommodating.

The argument for physical force (“with a stick”) is a threat of unpleasant consequences, and in particular, the threat of violence or the direct use of some means of coercion.

Argument for benefit - instead of logical justification for the truth of the thesis, they advocate for considering it as true due to its benefit in moral, political, economic or some other respect.

An argument for fidelity - instead of proving a thesis, one is inclined to accept it due to loyalty to traditions, party beliefs, or even personal loyalty to the person putting forward the thesis. When it comes to phenomena of public life, there are often appeals to the opinion of the people, claims to speak “on behalf of the people.”

The argument for pity is the excitement on the other side of pity and sympathy.

Thus, at one of the discussions on Charles Darwin’s theory of the origin of species, Bishop Wilberforce addressed the audience with the question of whether their ancestors were monkeys. The biologist T. Huxley, who defended this theory, responded that he was ashamed not of his ape ancestors, but of people who lack intelligence and are unable to take Darwin’s conclusions seriously. The bishop's argument, like that of his opponent, are typical arguments addressed to the public. To those who were present at this discussion that took place at the end of the 19th century, it seemed not entirely proper to have monkeys as their, albeit distant, ancestors.

Personal arguments also include cases when, in order to refute some accusation, the merits of the defendant are emphasized. This is what, for example, a lawyer does when he says in court: “Gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Judge! My client admitted that he was stealing. This is a valuable and sincere recognition. I would even say that it testifies to an unusually integral and deeply decent nature, a courageous and honest person. But is it possible, gentlemen, that a person possessing such rare qualities could be a thief?

The argument of pity is used by a student who has not passed the exam and asks the professor to give him at least a “satisfactory” grade, otherwise he will be deprived of his scholarship.

All these arguments are, of course, incorrect ways to defend one's position. But it is not difficult to notice that the use of some is easier to understand and excuse than the use of others. Some cannot be justified at all.

Such tricks as “bait”, “belittling”, etc. are also unacceptable in argumentation.

“self-praise”, “insight”, “towards common sense”, “finding out” (“and tomorrow ...”), “label”, “choice of terminology”, “jabbering”, “hammering”,

“meaningful understatement”, “weak link”, “alleged inattention”, “burden of proof”, “feigning misunderstanding”, etc.

Tricks of an organizational and procedural nature do not relate to the content of the provisions being discussed, but rather to certain tactics of conducting the discussion. They may consist of using the following techniques:

materials needed for discussion are not distributed on time or are distributed selectively;

the floor is given first to those whose opinion is impressive and known; This is how the initial setting is programmed;

the discussion pauses on the speaker, whose position is more consistent with the predetermined goal, i.e., a well-known ability of the human psyche is used - the first and last speeches are more firmly remembered, they have a stronger influence on the psychological attitude.

some speakers are strictly limited in complying with the regulations, others are allowed to go beyond them; Some people “forgive” harsh remarks about their opponent, others make comments;

first, “let off steam” on unimportant and unimportant issues, and then, when everyone is tired or under the impression of the previous discussion, an issue is raised that they want to get a solution to without a thorough discussion;

“take it by the throat” - not wanting to accept the thesis or listen to the opponent’s objections, a person raises his tone, begins to interrupt him, does not allow him to express his thought, verbally kills him in the end, making it impossible to continue the discussion.

In order not to fall for all sorts of tricks, not to be a victim of paralogisms, you need to be able to recognize them; the next step is to neutralize them. If this is done skillfully, with sufficient analysis of the essence and purpose of the trick, then the analysis undertaken discourages this and other participants in the discussion from resorting to them, since everyone becomes confident that in this discussion it is necessary to work in an honest manner and cannot rely on the success of illegal techniques.

Paradoxes differ from paralogisms and sophisms in that they arise not as a result of deliberate logical errors, but because of the ambiguity, uncertainty and even inconsistency of some initial principles and concepts of a particular science or generally accepted norms and methods of cognition in general.

Consider the statement “This statement is false.” Is it false? If yes, then it is true. If it is true, then it is false. It turns out to be a vicious circle of contradictions.

Another paradox was proposed by the famous mathematician and philosopher B. Russell in order to illustrate another of his paradoxes related to set theory. “In a certain city there lives an eccentric Barber, he shaves those and only those who do not shave themselves. The question arises: does Barber shave himself or not? If he shaves himself, then he should not shave himself, and if he does not shave himself, then he should shave himself.”

At first glance, paradoxes seem to be simple curiosities and serve as logical exercises (“Liar”, “Sphinx”, “Barber”, etc.). However, paradoxes periodically arise in the development of every science and serve as symptoms of trouble in the substantiation of its theoretical constructions. This indicates that the emergence of paradoxes is not

is something irregular, unexpected, accidental in the history of the development of scientific thinking. Their appearance signals the need to revise previous theoretical concepts and use more adequate concepts, principles and research methods.

As a result of mastering this topic, the student should: know

• – structural elements of argumentation, proof, refutation,
• – similarities and differences between argumentation and evidence; be able to
• – distinguish between direct and indirect evidence; own
• – skills in using various methods of refutation.

Argumentation and proof. Argument structure

Logical thinking is manifested in evidence and validity of the judgments put forward. Evidence is the most important property of correct thinking. The first manifestation of incorrect thinking is unfoundedness, groundlessness, disregard for strict conditions and rules of evidence.

Every judgment made about something or someone is either true or false. The truth of some judgments can be verified by directly comparing their content with reality using the senses in the process of practical activity. However, this method of verification cannot always be used. Thus, the truth of judgments about facts that took place in the past or that may appear in the future can be established and verified only indirectly, logically, since by the time such facts are known they either cease to exist or do not yet exist in reality and therefore cannot be perceived directly. It is impossible, for example, to directly verify the truth of the proposition: “At the time of the commission of the crime, the accused N was at the crime scene." The truth or falsity of such judgments is established or verified not directly, but indirectly. Because of this, at the stage of abstract thinking there is a need for a special procedure - justification (argumentation).

The modern theory of argumentation as a theory of persuasion goes far beyond the logical theory of evidence, since it covers not only logical aspects, but also largely rhetorical ones, so it is no coincidence that the theory of argumentation is called “new rhetoric.” It also includes social, linguistic, psychological aspects.

Argumentation is a complete or partial justification of a judgment with the help of other judgments, where, along with logical methods, linguistic, emotional-psychological and other extra-logical techniques and methods of persuasive influence are also used.

Justify any judgment means to find other judgments that confirm it, which are logically related to the justified judgment.

There are two aspects to the study of argumentation: logical and communicative.

IN logical In terms of plan, the purpose of argumentation comes down to justifying a certain position, point of view, formulation with the help of other provisions called arguments. In the case of effective argumentation, it is also realized communicative aspect of argumentation, when the interlocutor agrees with the arguments and methods of proving or refuting the original position.

The core of argumentation, its deep essence, is evidence, which gives the argumentation the character of strict reasoning.

A proof is a logical technique (operation) that substantiates the truth of a judgment with the help of other logically related judgments, the truth of which has already been established.

Argumentation (like evidence) has a three-member structure, including thesis, arguments and demonstration, and has uniform rules for constructing the justification process, which are discussed below.

Thesis is a proposition whose truth needs to be proven.

Arguments (grounds, arguments) are true judgments with the help of which a thesis is justified.

In general, there are two types of arguments: correct and incorrect, correct or incorrect.

• 1. Arguments ad rem (concerning the case)) are correct. They are objective and relate to the essence of the thesis being proven. These are the following points of evidence:
  • A) axioms(Greek axioma– without proof) – unproven scientific provisions accepted as an argument in proving other provisions. The concept of “axiom” contains two logical meanings: 1) a true position that does not require proof, 2) the starting point of evidence;
  • b) theorems– proven scientific provisions. Their proof takes the form of a logical consequence of the axioms;
  • V) laws– special provisions of the sciences that establish essential, i.e. necessary, stable and repeating connections between phenomena. Each science has its own laws that sum up a certain type of research practice. Axioms and theorems also take the form of laws (axiom of syllogism, Pythagorean theorem);
  • G) judgments of fact– section of scientific knowledge of an experimental nature (observational results, instrument readings, sociological data, experimental data, etc.). As arguments, information about facts is taken whose truth is confirmed in practice;
  • d) definitions. This logical operation allows you to form in each scientific field a class of definitions that play a dual role: on the one hand, they allow you to specify an object and distinguish it from other objects in a given area, and on the other, to decipher the volume scientific knowledge, introducing new definitions.
• 2. Ad hominem arguments (appealing to a person) in logic are considered incorrect, and the proof using them is incorrect. They are analyzed in more detail in the section “Unacceptable methods of defense and refutation.” Their goal is to convince at any cost - by citing authority, playing on feelings (pity, compassion, fidelity), promises, assurances, etc.

Proof pays "close attention" to the quality and composition of arguments. The form of transition from arguments to thesis can be different. It forms the third element in the structure of the proof - the form of proof (demonstration).

Form of evidence (demonstration ) called a method of logical connection between the thesis and arguments.

Scorpion