THE STRENGTH OF A CLAIM AND JUDICIAL REASONING DERIVED BY LOGICAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL METHOD AND MATHEMATICAL MODELLING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18485/Keywords:
strength of claim, empiricism, contradiction, consistency, judicial reasoningAbstract
The unjustifiability of complete and uncritical acceptance of empiricism or logical positivism in science, including legal, or in the search for truth in general, are often present and lead to incomplete practical outcomes. The aim of our paper is to modify the existing practice in order to reach the correct conclusion through sensory and empirical data taking into account the importance of consistencies of the system of claims and its measure in the overall strength of an individual claim. In order to properly understand the role of consistency, we demonstrated scientific realism and rationalism in the science of law, since in the judicial system the aim of judges is similar or the same as the aim of scientific work, which is to reach or establish the truth. In our research, we started from the real situation that the problem in forming a correct conclusion of a judge about the truth of a certain piece of evidence, ie about a certain system of allegations, is to some extent contradictory or inconsistent in the testimony of a witness or party. The paper creates an analogous logical-methodological and psychological-statistical model for determining the truth of a statement, or system of claims, i.e. explicates a formula in which the consistency and coherence of the system is evaluated differently in relation to empiricism, and which (consistency) is often underestimated in common sense and in the social sciences. The importance of the inductive-deductive method in the judge’s opinion is also explicit and the rudiment of a specific decision-conclusion model is stated, i.e. the analogy with inferential formulas is drawn, and statistical tests on the basis of which the credibility and strength of statements can be assessed. The results of our research show that the strength of the claim of one statement decision-making process in the court should be based on the dominance of positive data over contradictions, whereby the number of positive data should be at least two or three times greater than contradictions.
References
[1] Armstrong, David Malet, Belief, Truth and Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973.
[2] Barnett, Vic, Comparative Statistical Inference, London, John Willey, 1973.
[3] Kelly, George, The psychology of personal constructs, New York, Norton, 1955.
[4] Dragićević Čedomir i Lazar Tenjović, Statistika za psihologe, Društvo psihologa Srbije, Beograd, 1983.
[5] Koen, Moris i Nejgel Ernest, Uvod u logiku i naučni metod, Zavod za udžbenike, Beograd, 1965.
[6] Komlenić, Miroslav, „Sudovi u maksimama i poslovicama – rezultat divergentnog ili konvergentnog mišljenja – Dani primenjene psihologije II” u: Društvo, porodica i ponašanje, Niš, 2007.
[7] Lukić, Radomir, Metodologija prava, Naučna knjiga, Beograd, 1983.
[8] Perović Rade, Radmila Đorđević, Slavka Milošević i Emilija Lutovac, Osnovi opšte geografije, Veselin Masleša, Sarajevo, 1955.
[9] Petrović, Gojko, Logika, Zagreb, Školska knjiga, 1965.
[10] Petrović, Gojko, Logika, Zavod za udžbenike, Beograd, 2011.
[11] Poper, Karl, Logika naučnog otkrića, Nolit, Beograd, 1973.
[12] Poznić, Borivoje i Vesna Rakić-Vodinelić, Građansko procesno pravo (petnaesto izmenjeno i dopunjeno izdanje), Savremena administracija, Beograd, 1999.
[13] Ristić, Živan, O istraživanju, metodu i znanju, Institut za pedagoška istraživanja, Beograd, 1995.
[14] Presuda, II 208 Prž 24336/2012, 27. 09. 2012, Viši prekršajni sud, Odeljenje u Nišu.
[15] Presuda, Pr 805/12, 27. 06. 2012, Prekršajni sud u Pirotu.
[16] Тулмин, Стивен Э., Человеческое понимание, Прогесс, Москва, 1984.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
