In science and practice, depending on the field of study, they use different methods of proving hypotheses. The main ones are three ways: deductive substantiation of the hypothesis expressed in the hypothesis; logical proof of the hypothesis; direct detection of the objects suggested in the hypothesis.

With regard to forensic research, we will consider two main ways of converting versions into reliable knowledge: (1) direct detection of the sought-after items and (2) logical proving of versions by confirming the consequences.

(1)Direct detection of the items you are looking for... Private hypotheses in science and versions in forensic research often set themselves the task of identifying the fact that specific objects and phenomena exist at a certain time and place, or answer the question about the properties and qualities of such objects. The most persuasive way of converting such an assumption into valid knowledge is direct detection at the expected time or place of the desired items or direct perception of the assumed properties.

For example, when investigating criminal cases of embezzlement, as well as robbery, banditry, fraud, etc. an important task of the judicial and investigative authorities is to discover things, valuables and sums of money acquired or accumulated in a criminal way. These values ​​and things, as a rule, are hidden or realized by criminals. In this regard, private versions of the whereabouts of such things and values ​​arise.

Versions proven by direct detection of the suggested cause are always private versions. With their help, as a rule, only individual factual circumstances of the case, private parties to the event of a crime are established.

(2)Logical proof of versions... Versions explaining the material circumstances of the investigated cases are converted into reliable knowledge through logical justification. It proceeds in an indirect way, for events that took place in the past, or phenomena that exist at the present time, but are inaccessible to direct perception, are cognized. This is how, for example, versions about the method of committing a crime, about guilt, about the motives for committing a crime, objective circumstances under which the act was committed, etc. are proved.

The logical proof of a hypothesis, depending on the method of justification, can take the form indirect or direct evidence.

Indirect proof proceeds by refuting and excluding all false versions, on the basis of which the reliability of the only remaining assumption is asserted..

The conclusion proceeds in the form of a negative-affirmative modus of a dividing-categorical inference. The elimination method can be represented as follows:

The conclusion in this conclusion can be regarded as reliable if, firstly, it is built an exhaustive range of versions , explaining the event under investigation, and, secondly, in the process of checking versions all false assumptions refuted . The version indicating 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 proceeding through elimination method , is often used in forensic practice in proving both general and particular versions.

Indirect proof of hypotheses in the investigation of crimes should be applied taking into account the peculiarities 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. In case of obvious insufficiency of the source material in at the beginning of an investigation, it is difficult to accurately and definitely list all the real possible causes , which would explain the origin of the evidence. Therefore, along with the versions containing precise and clear indications of one or another possible cause, it is necessary to put forward also vague assumptions.

So, 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 someone from outside.

While the first three versions are completely verifiable, since they refer to specific individuals, then the latest version is difficult to verify. The consequences arising from it will be poorly defined, which means that their verification will be associated with a time delay. However, it cannot be ruled out when versioning and planning an investigation; it can be fruitful.

When turning to the method of exclusion in indirect proof in a forensic study, one should not overestimate its significance and be limited only to this logical operation in the process of searching for the truth. Indirect evidence must be combined with direct justification of the remaining assumption.

Direct proof of a hypothesis proceeds by deriving various consequences from the hypothesis, but following 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 were deduced from the version cannot be regarded as a sufficient basis for the truth of the version, because the coinciding facts could have been caused by another reason.

Logic does not consider the transition from the statement of consequences to the statement of reason as demonstrative.

Since the cause always leaves an imprint on its action, then 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 , indicating their origin from only one, quite definite reason: { S a , S b ,..., S i } .

This version of the case should be confirmedordered body 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 the only assumption H 1 , and on the other - excludes any other explanation of the circumstances of the case.

As a result, we have such a connection between the basis and the effect, which can be expressed in the form of a double implication: “if and only if H 1 , then { S a , S b ,..., S i } ". This can be expressed symbolically as follows:

The inference from the statement of the investigation to the statement of the basis in the presence of such a double implication will be logically legitimate. If the lesser premise states that the totality of facts F a , F b ,..., F i coincides with the consequences S a , S b ,..., S i, then in conclusion they necessarily assert the existence of a reason H 1 .

The reasoning takes the form:

Subject to the above conditions, a forensic study comes to such knowledge about the circumstances of the crime and its participants, which is reliable, the only possible one and does not raise doubts about its truth.

1 From the Greek word logos - "thought", "word", "mind", "regularity." The term "logic" is also used to denote the laws of the objective world (for example, "logic of facts", "logic of things", "logic of political struggle", etc.); to indicate the severity, consistency, regularity of the thinking process ("logic of thinking", "logic of reasoning"). The natural nature of thinking is a kind of reflection of objective laws. The logic of thinking is a reflection of the logic of things.

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

4 From the Latin term abstractio - distraction. Abstraction is a process of abstraction from some properties of objects, allowing to highlight its other properties. Abstraction is the result of abstraction.

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

7 Considering the European traditions, in the mainstream of which logic was mainly developed in Russia, we do not stop here on the formation and development of logical doctrines in the countries of the East, where the original concepts of such thinkers as Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes), etc. ...

8 Mathematical logic is also called a special section of modern mathematics that investigates the specifics of mathematical reasoning and proofs.

9 In the "Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences" Hegel formulated this thought 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.P. 110). Creating dialectical logic, Hegel criticized formal logic, but he did not deny its significance. Highly evaluating Aristotle as the founder of formal logic, Hegel wrote in the same work: “The study of this formal logic, no doubt, brings a certain benefit; this study, as they say, sharpens the mind. We teach to concentrate thought, we learn to abstract, while in ordinary consciousness we are dealing with mental representations that intersect and get confused with each other. " (Ibid. Pp. 115-116.)

10 Essence as a set of all internal, necessary properties and connections of an object, taken in their natural interdependence, is reflected in scientific concepts that are formed on the basis of a comprehensive study of the object and penetration into its inner nature using scientific methods of cognition. The term "essential feature" is often used to denote features of an object, which, although they do not reveal its real essence, are important for its characteristics.

11 Words and phrases that have a definite meaning and designate an object are called names. See Ch. I, § 4.

12 One should not confuse the logical characterization of concepts as positive and negative with a political, moral, legal assessment of the phenomena that they reflect. So, the concepts of "aggression", "crime", "alcoholism" are positive: their content is made up of features belonging to the subject. However, the phenomena reflected in these concepts cause us a negative assessment.

13 Usually indicate the closest genus, which contains more features in common with the features of the concept being defined (bringing the concept of "check" under the concept of "document" will complicate the task of definition). Therefore, in the logical literature, this type of definition is sometimes called a definition through nearest genus and species difference.

14 One of the heroes of Moliere's play "The Imaginary Sick" constructed his reasoning about the cause of the sleeping power of opium as follows: opium puts you to sleep because it has a sleeping power, and opium has a sleeping power because it puts you to sleep.

15 From the Greek - "the same word."

16 From the actual interrogative sentences, one should distinguish interrogative-rhetorical sentences (rhetorical question) containing an affirmation or negation in the form of a question. For example: "Who does not know this?", "How can you do this?" These sentences express the judgments “Everyone knows this”, “You cannot do this”. They can be both true and false.

17 Since the Russian language is characterized by a mobile word order, the members of the sentence and the terms of the judgment can take different positions. For example: “A lonely sail gleams / In the fog of the blue sea” (Lermontov). The subject of this judgment is the concept of "lonely sail", the predicate is the concept "whitening in the blue mist of the sea." The link is not grammatically expressed. Therefore, in the logical analysis of such judgments, first of all from works of art, especially poetic ones, it is important to correctly determine the subject, predicate and link.

18 The words "all", "none", "some" and others, characterizing a judgment in terms of its quantity, are called quantifier words (from the Latin quantum - "how much"). Introducing quantifiable words into judgment is called quantification.

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

20 The term "epistemic" comes from the Greek word "episteme", which in ancient philosophy meant superior type undoubted, reliable knowledge.

21 The term “deontic” is borrowed from the Greek language and means “duty”.

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

Lesson objectives:

Expansion and generalization of students' knowledge about different views on the origin of life on Earth;

Creation of a problem-oriented developmental environment as a condition for the disclosure of the intellectual potential of the personality of a high school graduate.

Equipment:

Portraits of prominent scientists and philosophers of the past;

Presentations: "Creationism", "Development of ideas about the origin of life";

Card for laboratory work: "Analysis and assessment of various hypotheses of the origin of life";

Card " Concise vocabulary terms ";

Computer, projector, screen.

During the classes

1. Actualization of knowledge.

Differences between the living and the inanimate and the definition of the concept of "life". (short conversation).

2. Introductory remarks by the teacher.

Life has existed on Earth for 4.5 billion years. It fills every corner of our planet. Lakes, rivers, seas, oceans, mountains, plains, deserts, even the air are inhabited by living things. It is assumed that in the entire history of life on Earth there were about 4.5 billion species of animals and plants.

How did life originate and develop on our planet? The problem of the origin of life has chained human thought to itself from time immemorial. From ancient times to our time, many hypotheses have been put forward about the origin of life on Earth. But to this day there is no definitive answer. Investigating the history of the development of ideas about the origin of life, we can only get acquainted with the scientific theories proposed by scientists, with the results of their research on this issue.

From ancient times to our time, many hypotheses have been put forward about the origin of life on Earth. However, all their diversity comes down to two mutually exclusive points of view.

Supporters of the theory of biogenesis (from the Greek. Bio - life and genesis - origin) believed that all living things come only from living things. Their opponents defended the theory of abiogenesis and believed that the origin of the living from the non-living was possible, that is, in one way or another, they allowed the spontaneous generation of life.

We can observe elements of materialistic and idealistic views that permeate the entire history of the formation of views on the emergence of life from ancient times to the present day.

The rise of the earth

From point of view modern science The sun and the planets arose simultaneously from interstellar matter - particles of dust and gas. This cold substance gradually became denser, compressed, and then disintegrated into several unequal lumps. One of them, the largest, gave rise to the Sun. Its substance, continuing to shrink, warmed up, a rotating disk-shaped cloud of gas and dust formed around it. The planets arose from dense clots of this cloud. The earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago. Scientists have determined this by the age of the most ancient rocks.

Stationary (constant) state theory

According to the theory of a stationary state, the Earth never arose, but existed forever; environmental conditions have always been possible to sustain life, and if they have changed, then not by much. According to this version, the species of living beings have never formed either, they have always existed, and each species has only two possible realities - either a change in numbers or extinction. But the hypothesis of a stationary state fundamentally contradicts the data of modern science, in particular astronomy, these data indicate the finite existence of the lifetime of any stars and, accordingly, planetary systems around these stars. According to modern estimates based on taking into account the rates of radioactive decay, the age of the Earth, the Sun and the Solar system is estimated at ~ 4.6 billion years. Therefore, this hypothesis is usually not considered by academic science.

Proponents of this theory refuse to admit that the presence or absence of certain fossil remains (remains) can specifically focus attention on the time of the emergence or extinction of individual, different species, and cites coelacanth, a representative of cross-finned fish, as an example.

The theory of spontaneous generation of life

Spontaneous generation theory originated in ancient China, Babylon and Greece as an alternative to creationism with which it coexisted. Aristotle was also an adherent of this theory. Her followers believed that certain substances contain an "active principle", which, under suitable conditions, can create a living organism.

Views on the appearance of the Bernakel goose were known among seafarers. This goose grows on fragments of a pine tree, rushing through the depths of the sea. Initially, it looks like a droplet of resin. It attaches with its beak to a tree and provides a hard shell for safety, in which it lives calmly and carefree. After a while, feathers grow on the goose, and then it descends from a piece of bark into the water and begins to swim. And one day it flaps its wings and flies away.

For many centuries, believing in the act of divine creation, people, moreover, were firmly convinced that life constantly arises spontaneously. Even the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote that not only plants, worms, insects, but even fish, frogs and mice can be born from wet soil or rotting silt. Dutch scientist Jan Van Helmont in the 17th century. described his experience, claiming that living mice allegedly originated in him from dirty linen and a handful of wheat locked in a closet. Another naturalist, Grindel von Ah, described the spontaneous generation of a living frog allegedly observed by him: “I would like to describe the birth of a frog, which I was able to observe with a microscope. Once I took a drop of May dew and, carefully observing it under a microscope, I noticed that some kind of creature was forming in me. Observing diligently on the second day, I noticed that the body had already appeared, but the head still did not seem to be clearly formed; Continuing my observations on the third day, I became convinced that the creature I was observing was nothing more than a frog with a head and legs. The attached figure explains everything. "

“These are the facts,” wrote Aristotle in his work, “living things can arise as a result not only of the mating of organisms, but also as a result of soil decomposition, spontaneously generating under the action of the forces of nature from the decomposing earth.”

4. Teacher comment on the assessment of studies of the problem of the origin of life in the 18-19 centuries.

The Italian naturalist Francesco Redi opposed this approach to the problem of the origin of life. “The conviction would be in vain,” he wrote, “if it could not be confirmed by experiment. So I took 2 vessels and put an eel in there. One vessel was closed and the other remained open. It could be seen that the fly larvae appeared only in the open vessel. This means that the larvae do not spontaneously arise, but from eggs laid by flies. "

But Redi's opponents, the so-called vitalists (from the Latin vitas - life) - supporters of the all-pervading life force - argued that air could not enter a closed pot, and with it the "life force", therefore, the larvae of flies in a closed vessel could not appeared.

Then Redi staged an experiment of genius in its simplicity. He put the dead snakes in 2 vessels, one left open, the other closed with muslin. After some time, fly larvae appeared only in an open vessel. Experience convinced that plants and animals emerge only from seeds or eggs formed by parental individuals, but cannot arise from inanimate nature. What about microorganisms? Disputes between supporters of biogenesis and abiogenesis continued.

In 1859, the French Academy of Sciences awarded a prize to those who put an end to the controversy about the spontaneous generation of life. In 1862 Louis Pasteur received the Prize. He conducted an experiment that rivaled Redi's in simplicity. In flasks, he boiled meat broth, in which microorganisms could develop. When boiled, they and their spores died. Pasteur attached a curved tube to the flask, microbial spores settled in it and could not penetrate into the nutrient medium, and access to the notorious “vital force” was provided. The culture medium remained sterile, but as soon as the tube was broken off, the medium decayed. Subsequently, on the basis of Pasteur's experience, methods were created: pasteurization, conservation, the doctrine of asepsis and antiseptics. These were the practical results of the theoretical dispute.

5. Students' speeches on the analysis of other hypotheses of the origin of life on Earth.

Hypotheses of the eternity of life in the Universe. Panspermia

L. Pasteur's refutation of the theory of the spontaneous origin of life played a double role. On the one hand, representatives of idealistic philosophy saw in his experiments only direct evidence of the fundamental impossibility of the transition from inorganic matter to living beings as a result of the action of only natural forces of nature. This was in full agreement with their opinion that for the emergence of life, the intervention of the non-material principle - the creator - is necessary. On the other hand, some materialistically thinking natural scientists have now lost the opportunity to use the phenomenon of spontaneous generation of life as the main proof of their views. The concept of the eternity of life in the universe arose. This is how the hypothesis of panspermia appeared, which was put forward by the German chemist J. Liebig (1803 - 1873).

According to the panspermia hypothesis, life exists forever and is transferred from planet to planet by meteorites. The simplest organisms or their spores (“seeds of life”), getting on a new planet and finding favorable conditions here, multiply, giving rise to evolution from the simplest to complex forms. A supporter of the panspermia hypothesis was the outstanding Russian naturalist V.I. Vernadsky (1863 - 1945)

The Swedish physicist-chemist S. Arrhenius (1859-1927) was especially active in developing the theory of panspermia. In the experiments of the Russian physicist P.N. Lebedev (1866-1912), who discovered the pressure of the light flux, S. Arrhenius saw evidence of the possibility of transferring the spores of microorganisms from planet to planet. Life is transferred, he assumed, not in the form of microorganisms on meteorites, heating up when entering the dense layers of the atmosphere - the spores themselves can move in space, driven by the pressure of sunlight!

Later, this view was also rejected. Under the conditions of space, the rudiments of life in those forms that are known to us on Earth, apparently, cannot exist, and all attempts to discover any forms of life in space have not yielded positive results so far. Nevertheless, some modern scientists also hypothesize about the extraterrestrial origin of life. Thus, American scientists F. Crick and L. Orgel believe that the Earth was "seeded" by some intelligent beings, inhabitants of those planetary systems, the development of life on which outstripped our solar system by billions of years. Having equipped a rocket and placed a container with the simplest organisms in it, they launched it towards the Earth, having previously established that our planet has the necessary conditions for life. Of course, this cannot be proven and categorically denied is not possible.

One piece of evidence in favor of the extraterrestrial origin of life was the discovery of rod-shaped formations inside a meteorite called ALH 84001, resembling fossilized bacteria in shape. The meteorite itself was a piece of the Martian crust, which was thrown into space 16 million years ago as a result of an explosion on this planet. And 13 thousand years ago, it fell to Earth, in Antarctica, where it was recently discovered. To finally answer the question "Is there life on Mars?" will succeed in the near future, when the reports of the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA are published. This organization launched a satellite to Mars in order to take samples of Martian soil and is now processing the material received. If studies show that microorganisms inhabited Mars, then it will be possible to speak about the introduction of life from space with a greater degree of certainty.

The theory of panspermia leads us away from solving the question of the origin of life on Earth: if life did not arise on Earth, then how did it arise outside of it? This theory was not accepted by many scientists (does not explain the origin of life)

Creation hypothesis

Creation hypothesis is a view of the origin of life from the point of view of believers. According to this hypothesis, life arose as a result of some supernatural event in the past. It is adhered to by followers of all religious concessions of the world - Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism. From the point of view of these religions, the universe consists of material and spiritual components. Living matter, that is, the animal, vegetable world and man, was generated by the spiritual component, in other words, God. The supporters of this hypothesis give examples of the features of living matter that cannot be explained by modern science and from the point of view of religion demonstrate the existence of the Supreme Reason. For example: viruses are composed of a protein coat and DNA. In the host cell for reproduction, the virus needs to double the DNA molecule, but this requires enormous energy, who initiates this process? Within the framework of the natural sciences, the question has not yet been answered.

Does this mean that the stereotypical view that science and religion are inherently contradictory, inherent in many, is true? Many researchers believe that science and religion are ways of knowing the two sides of a single world - material and spiritual reality. In practice, they should not be opposed, but complement and support each other. That is why Albert Einstein said: "Science without religion is flawed, religion without science is blind." Presentation 2

Biochemical evolution hypothesis

The theory of biochemical evolution has the largest number of supporters among modern scientists. The earth originated about five billion years ago; initially, its surface temperature was very high. As it cooled down, a solid surface (lithosphere) was formed. The atmosphere, which originally consisted of light gases (hydrogen, helium), could not be effectively held by an insufficiently dense Earth, and these gases were replaced by heavier ones: water vapor, carbon dioxide, ammonia and methane. When the Earth's temperature dropped below 100 ° C, water vapor began to condense, forming the world's oceans. At this time, complex compounds were formed from primary compounds. organic matter; energy for fusion reactions was delivered by lightning discharges and intense ultraviolet radiation. The accumulation of substances was facilitated by the absence of living organisms - consumers of organic matter - and the main oxidant - oxygen.

Primary organic substances (proteins) could be created from inorganic ones under conditions of the reducing nature of the atmosphere due to the energy of powerful electrical discharges. Protein structures (protobionts, in Oparin's terminology), due to amphotericity, formed colloidal hydrophilic complexes (attracted water molecules) with a common water shell. These complexes could separate from the entire mass of water and merge with each other, forming coacervate drops (coacervation is the spontaneous separation of an aqueous solution of polymers into phases with different concentrations). In coacervates, substances entered into further chemical reactions (selective absorption of metal ions and the formation of enzymes took place). The complication of protobionts was achieved by the selection of such coacervate drops, which had an advantage in better utilization of substances and energy of the medium. At the border between the coacervates and the external environment, a primitive membrane was formed from lipids, which led to the emergence of the first cell.

Modern science considers the abiogenic origin of life on Earth, considering this theory the most probable. Abiogenesis consists of three main stages in the development of life:

1. Abiogenic occurrence of biological monomers.

2. Formation of biological polymers.

3. Formation of membrane structures and primary organisms (probionts).

Currently, the problem of the origin of life has not been resolved. Scientists continue to look for ways to solve it.

7. Implementation of laboratory work

Laboratory work
"Analysis and evaluation of various hypotheses of the origin of life"

Purpose of the study To characterize the mythological ideas of ancient scientists, the first scientific attempts to explain the essence and the process of the origin of life, to characterize the experimental evidence of hypotheses: the experiments of F. Redi, the views of V. Harvey, the experiments of L. Pasteur, theories of the eternity of life, materialistic ideas about the origin of life on Earth. Get acquainted with the statements of the supporters of panspermia, the hypothesis about the eternity of life in the Universe. Explain why these theories were not accepted by many scientists.

Are the presented hypotheses conclusive? Do they allow the evolutionary development of nature? Can these hypotheses be considered scientific? Indicate with (+) or (-)

Based on the analysis performed, make a conclusion about which of the hypotheses of the origin of life on Earth is more probable.

Terminological dictionary

Life is one of the forms of existence of matter, which naturally arises under certain conditions in the process of its development. Organisms differ from inanimate objects by the exchange of substances, irritability, the ability to reproduce, grow, develop, regulate composition and functions, to various forms of movement, adaptability to the environment, etc.

Abiogenesis is a theory according to which living things can arise from non-living things.

In a broad sense, abiogenesis is an attempt to imagine the emergence of living things from non-living things.

Biogenesis is a theory according to which living things can arise only from living things.

Vitalism is a theory according to which there is “life force” everywhere, which is enough just to “breathe”, and the inanimate will become alive.

Creationism is a theory according to which life arose as a result of some supernatural event in the past, which most often means a divine creation.

Panspermia is a theory according to which the “seeds of life” were brought to Earth from space along with meteorites or cosmic dust.

Coacervates are protein complexes, isolated from the mass of water, capable of exchanging substances with environment and selectively accumulate various compounds.

Probionts are primitive heterotrophic organisms that arose in the “primordial broth”.

8. Summing up

Life is just a spark in the endless darkness: it will appear, flicker and disappear forever.

Compared to the infinity of time, the duration of human life is only a vanishingly short moment, but this is all that is given to us here.

Therefore, you need to lead your life in the light of eternity and spend time and talents on things that have eternal value.

Homework. Compose answers to questions in the form of a presentation:

1. What is the value of life?

2. What is the meaning of human life?

3. Why should you save your life?

Plan.

1. Pre-problem and problem.

2. Definition of a hypothesis, types of hypotheses.

3. Constructing a hypothesis.

4. Requirements for the hypothesis.

5. Methods of proving hypotheses.

6. Theory.

7. Management decision.

An important role in science is played not only by the teaching of logic about the forms of thinking (concept, judgment and argumentation, but also about such forms of knowledge as a problem, hypothesis and theory.

Problems name important in practical or theoretical terms of the problem, ways of solving which are unknown or not fully known. There are two types of problems: undeveloped and developed.

Underdeveloped problems is a task characterized by the following features. First, this is a non-standard problem, that is, a problem for which there is no algorithm (the algorithm is unknown or even impossible). This is most often a difficult task. Secondly, this is a task that arose on the basis of a certain knowledge (theory, concept, etc.), that is, a task that arose as a natural result of the cognition process.

Thirdly, this is a task, the solution of which is aimed at eliminating the contradictions that have arisen in cognition (contradictions between individual provisions of a theory or concept, provisions of a concept and facts, provisions of a theory and more fundamental theories, between the apparent completeness of a theory and the presence of facts that a theory cannot explain), as well as to eliminate the discrepancy between needs and the availability of funds to satisfy them. Fourthly, this is a task, ways of solving which are not visible. They are sometimes called pre-problems.

A task that is characterized by the first three of the above features, and also contains more or less specific instructions on the way to solve, is called developed problem or the actual problem. Problems are divided into types or degrees of specificity of instructions on the way to solve them.

Thus, the developed problem is "knowledge of some ignorance", supplemented by a more or less specific indication of ways to eliminate this ignorance.

As a rule, the problem formulation includes three parts:

1) a system of statements (description of the initial knowledge - what is given);

2) a question or urge (“How to establish this and that?” Or “Find this and that?”);

3) a system of guidelines for possible solutions.

The last part is missing in the formulation of the undeveloped problem.

A problem is called not only knowledge of these types, but also the process of cognition, which consists in the formation of an undeveloped problem, the transformation of the latter into a developed one, and then a developed problem of the first degree into a developed problem of the second degree, etc. up to solving the problem.

The problem as a process of knowledge development consists of several stages:

1) Formation of an undeveloped problem (pre-problem);

2) Development of the problem - the formation of a developed problem of the first degree, second degree, etc. by gradually specifying ways to resolve it;

3) Resolution (or establishment of insolubility) of the problem.

Reliable knowledge in a scientific or practical field is always preceded by rational comprehension and assessment of the factual material delivered by observation. This mental activity is accompanied by the construction of various kinds of guesses and hypothetical explanations of the observed phenomena. They are problematic at first. Further research corrects these explanations. As a result, science and practice overcome numerous delusions, contradictions and achieve objectively true results.

The decisive link in the cognitive chain that ensures the formation of new knowledge is hypothesis. A hypothesis is a form of human knowledge development. Mendeleev D.I. in "Fundamentals of Chemistry" wrote that hypotheses "science and especially its study are necessary. They give harmony and simplicity, which are difficult to achieve without their permission. The entire history of science shows this. Therefore, we can safely say: it is better to adhere to such a hypothesis, which may turn out to be incorrect over time, than none. Hypotheses make it easier and make it right scientific work- finding the truth, like a farmer's plow facilitates the cultivation of useful plants. "

Translated from Greek. this term means "guess". But if at the heart of every scientific hypothesis is a judgment of a probabilistic nature, then not every probabilistic judgment can be attributed to the field of hypotheses (for example, everyday assumptions, such as: "Probably, my friend is now at the rink" ; various arbitrary guesses; based on ignorance "predictions", etc.

A hypothesis is a special kind of conjecture. The process of cognition is also called a hypothesis, which consists in putting forward an assumption. Thus, in scientific literature the word "hypothesis" is used in two senses.

A hypothesis in the first sense of the word (a special kind of knowledge) means a reasonable (not completely) assumption about the causes of a phenomenon, about unobservable connections between phenomena, etc.

A hypothesis in the second sense of the word (the process of developing knowledge) is a complex process of cognition, which consists in putting forward an assumption, its incomplete justification and proof or refutation.

The construction of a hypothesis consists of three consecutive stages. First step - analysis individual facts and relationships between them; second phase - synthesis facts, their generalization; third stage - advancing assumptions about what the investigated phenomenon is.

The analysis of individual facts can proceed in the form of deductive u / s (the initial premises of the syllogism are either scientifically tested provisions or generalizations obtained in forensic practice), or inductive u / s (from individual facts, the relevant ones are selected and made of them generalization).

In addition to going through these stages in its development, the assumption, in order to be a hypothesis, must satisfy certain requirements that exactly hypothesis unlike all kinds of unscientific assumptions.

The hypothesis should:

1) be sure to rely on facts, on the achievements of science;

2) explain the entire course of phenomena for the analysis of which it is put forward;

3) be internally consistent;

4) in principle, be verifiable.

Hypothesis is a form of knowledge development, which is educated guess, put forward in order to clarify the properties and causes of the phenomena under study.

Let's define the characteristic features of the hypothesis:

1. A hypothesis is not just one of the possible, random logical figures, but a necessary component of any cognitive process. Where there is a search for new ideas or facts, regular connections or causal dependencies, there is always a hypothesis. It acts as a connecting link between previously achieved knowledge and new truths and, at the same time, a cognitive means that realizes the transition from the previous incomplete and imprecise knowledge to a new, more complete and more accurate one.

2. The construction of a hypothesis is always accompanied by the advancement assumptions about the nature of the investigated phenomena, which is the logical core of the hypothesis and is formulated as a separate judgment or a system of interrelated judgments about the properties of facts or regular connections of phenomena.

Since cognition sets the task of achieving objective truth, it means that a hypothesis that gives only probabilistic knowledge is an incomplete stage on the path to truth.

In order to turn into valid knowledge, the assumption is subject to scientific and practical verification. This process ultimately leads to a refutation or confirmation and further proof of the hypothesis.

The assumption that arises in the construction of a hypothesis is born as a result of the analysis of factual material, based on the generalization of numerous observations. A scientific hypothesis is not just a guess, fantasy or assumption, but one based on specific materials and thus reasonable, not an intuitively and subconsciously accepted assumption. An important condition for constructing a fruitful hypothesis is the observance of the principle objectivity of research. V psychologically objectivity means lack of bias when the researcher is guided by the interests of establishing the truth, and not by his subjective inclinations, preferences and desires. V logical and methodological plan objectivity means comprehensiveness of research.

A hypothesis in science, like a version in forensic research, is considered valid if it meets the following requirements.

Let's consider them:

1. A hypothesis should not be logically contradictory and should not contradict the fundamental principles of science. The last part is not absolute, for in some cases it is useful to question the very propositions of science. So, in the 18th century. The French Academy of Sciences decided not to consider studies on stones falling from the sky, because they have nowhere to fall (we are talking about meteorites).

2. The assumption should be testable in principle. There are two types of verifiability - practical and fundamental. The assumption is practically verifiable if it can be verified at a given time or in a short period of time. The assumption is fundamentally verifiable, if it can be verified not in the near future, but someday. Therefore, guesses that, in principle, cannot be verified (substantiated or refuted), for example, about God, are not recognized as hypotheses.

3. A hypothesis should not contradict previously established facts for the explanation of which it is not intended (not related to the subject area of ​​the hypothesis), i.e. should be as simple as possible, not require the introduction of more and more new hypotheses or assumptions.

3. The assumption should be applicable to the widest possible range of phenomena. This allows one to choose the simplest one out of two or more hypotheses explaining the same range of phenomena. This principle is called the principle of simplicity or "Occam's razor" because it was formulated by the English philosopher William of Ockham, who lived 600 years ago. Simplicity here means the absence of facts that the hypothesis should explain, but does not explain. In this case, it will be necessary to make reservations that the assumption explains all the facts, except for such and such and such, and to explain the latter facts, it will be necessary to put forward hypotheses auxiliary for this case.

The cognitive or heuristic value of a hypothesis is determined by its informativeness, which is expressed in the predictive and explanatory power of a hypothesis - in its ability to suggest - where and how to find new, more unknown facts and give them a rational explanation.

After putting forward an assumption, explaining on its basis all the available facts related to the subject area of ​​the hypothesis, as well as after checking the fulfillment of all the listed requirements (if they are met), the assumption is usually considered not fully justified, i.e. hypothesis.

Among the many types of hypotheses, we will consider the most important of their varieties: the first in terms of cognitive functions and the second is the object of research.

1. By function in the cognitive process, hypotheses are distinguished: a) descriptive and b) explanatory.

Descriptive hypotheses - these are assumptions about the qualities and properties inherent in the investigated object.

They usually answer the question: "What is this item?" or "What properties does this object have?"

Descriptive hypotheses can be put forward to identify composition or structures object disclosure mechanism or procedural features of his activities, definition functional characteristics of the object.

For example, the hypothesis about wave propagation of light was a hypothesis about the mechanism of light movement. Assumptions about the components and atomic chains of a new polymer in chemistry refer to hypotheses about composition and structure. The hypothesis of a political scientist or lawyer predicting the social effect of the adopted new package of legal provisions refers to functional assumptions.

Explanatory hypotheses- these are assumptions about the causes or mechanism of the object of research.

Such hypotheses usually ask: "Why did this event happen?" or "What are the reasons for the appearance of this item?"

II. Depending on the object of research distinguish between hypotheses:

A) general and B) private V) single.

General hypothesis is called an educated guess about the regular connections in nature and society and about empirical regularities. For example, the hypothesis about the atomic structure of matter; about the origin celestial bodies etc.

A particular hypothesis - it is a reasonable assumption about the origin and properties of single facts, specific events and phenomena.

For example, the assumptions that are put forward in judicial and investigative practice, because here one has to draw conclusions about single events, actions of people, etc.

Single hypothesis is a scientifically grounded assumption about the causes, origin and interrelationships of single facts, specific events or phenomena. The doctor builds single hypotheses about the course of treatment of a particular patient, choosing individual medicines and their dosage for him.

By degree of confidence distinguish between a working hypothesis and a scientific hypothesis.

Working hypothesis - this is a temporary assumption put forward from the first steps of the study, which serves as a conditional assumption that allows you to group the results of observations and give them an initial explanation.

Scientific hypothesis - this is a hypothesis explaining patterns development of natural phenomena, society and thinking.

A hypothesis in forensic research is usually called a version (from Latin - turnover, modification; from French - interpretation, translation).

Version in legal proceedings - one of the possible hypotheses explaining the origin or properties of individual legally significant circumstances or a crime in general.

The version differs from the scientific hypothesis in that it is put forward and tested in a relatively short time. Several versions are necessarily put forward for each case. When proposing and proving versions, they are guided not only by logical laws, but also by legal ones. The facts, on the basis of which the version is considered, must be identified, collected and consolidated in compliance with the criminal procedure laws.

A hypothesis or version is tested in two stages:

1. Deductive derivation of the consequences arising from the hypothesis.

2. Comparison of consequences with facts in order to refute or confirm a hypothesis. A version is considered disproved only if its inconsistency is sufficiently substantiated.

To refute the version, it is necessary that the consequences arising from it not only do not coincide, but contradicted the factual circumstances of the case.

A hypothesis or version is confirmed if the consequences derived from it coincide with the newly discovered facts. The more such coincidences and the more diverse the consequences, the more probable the hypothesis. In this case, it is said that the hypothesis is confirmed.

In science and practice, depending on the field of study, they use different methods of proving hypotheses.

The main ones are three ways:

1. Deductive substantiation of the hypothesis expressed in the hypothesis by deriving it from a more general position;

2. Logical proof of a hypothesis by confirming the consequences;

3. Direct detection of the objects and phenomena suggested in the hypothesis.

With regard to forensic research, two main ways of converting versions into reliable knowledge are considered:

1) direct detection of the sought-after items (for example, the detection of things, valuables and sums of money acquired or accumulated in a criminal way);

2) logical proving of versions by confirming the consequences (this is how, for example, versions about the methods of committing a crime, about guilt, about the motives for committing a crime, objective circumstances under which the act was committed, etc. are proved).

The logical proof of a hypothesis, depending on the method of justification, can take the form of:

A) indirect or B) direct evidence.

Indirect proof proceeds by refuting and excluding all false versions, on the basis of which they claim the reliability of the only remaining assumption. The conclusion can be regarded as reliable if, firstly, it is built an exhaustive range of versions, explaining the event under investigation, and, secondly, in the process of checking versions all false assumptions have been refuted.

Direct evidence hypothesis proceeds by deriving various consequences from the assumption and confirming them with newly discovered facts. Such a version must be confirmed by the evidence system, i.e. an ordered set of facts, which serves as a necessary and sufficient basis for a conclusion about the reliability of a single assumption, and on the other hand, excludes any other explanation of the circumstances of the case.

In science, there are two levels of knowledge - empirical and theoretical. At the first level, facts are collected, their primary systematization is carried out in the form of tables, diagrams, graphs, etc.

On the second level, reality is reflected in the form theories. The word "theory" is used in the wide and narrow sense of the word.

When they want to distinguish between mental and practical activity, they talk about theory and practice. In these cases theory(in the broadest sense of the word) is called thinking in general.

In the narrow sense of the word - under theory understand reliable (in the dialectical sense) knowledge about a certain area of ​​reality, which is a system of concepts and statements and allows one to explain and predict phenomena from this area.

So, theory is reliable knowledge (in the dialectical sense). Although the theory is not a complete and final truth about some area of ​​reality, it is nevertheless substantiated and proven in its main part. It contains content that will not be refuted in the future.

A feature of the theory is that it has predictive power. In theory, there are many initial statements, from which other statements are deduced by logical means, that is, in theory, it is possible to obtain some knowledge from others without directly referring to reality.

The theory not only describes a certain range of phenomena, but also provides an explanation for these phenomena.

Theory is a means of deductive and inductive systematization of empirical facts

Under management decision is understood as an authorized indication of reasonable actions aimed at achieving optimal or pretending to be optimal, the functioning and development of the control object.

The system of decisions governing the functioning and development of the controlled object is called fund for management decisions. Solutions that ensure the optimal functioning and development of the controlled object are called progressive. Solutions that, at a certain stage of development of the control object cease to meet the requirements of its optimal functioning and development, are called non-progressive. Among the non-progressive solutions, there are solutions that impede the functioning and development of the controlled object, that is, regressive solutions, and solutions that do not interfere with the functioning and development of the control object, but at the same time do not ensure its optimal development and functioning, that is neutral solutions.

The activities of the management apparatus are aimed at canceling regressive decisions, at canceling or improving neutral ones and developing progressive decisions.

Newly developed solutions can be divided into non-standard, or creative , and standard, or traditional. Non-standard solutions are completely new, original solutions for which there is no sample. Decisions made repeatedly in similar situations are called standard. For them, as a rule, “templates”, “stamps” are developed, which, however, do not exclude certain elements of creativity when using them. Subsequently, the creative solution can evolve into a standard solution model.

In this regard, the problem arises of selecting a model of a standard solution from a store of solutions for specific situation... An example of such a decision accumulator is a set of standard action plans for a police department on duty when they receive a report of an incident.

When setting out the logic of developing a managerial decision, we will keep in mind the development of non-standard solutions.

The logical form of developing a managerial decision is a dialectical and logical form of the cognition process. The process of developing a general form in dialectical logic differs from the corresponding process in formal logic.

To obtain a general formal-logical form, we abstract from specific thoughts in terms of their content. “When a difficult and confusing ... question is being solved, the elementary rule requires that at first be taken the most typical case, the most free from any extraneous, complicating influences and circumstances, and only then from its decision one should go further,“ taking one for others to take into account these extraneous and complicating circumstances. "

To find out the general form of developing managerial decisions, one should take the most typical decision, highlight the form of its development, and then complicate this form due to the new content inherent in only some decisions.

In the model of the cognition process, the result of which is a substantiated project of management decisions, a number of stages can be distinguished.

First of all, the zero stage of the development of a management decision is distinguished - preparation for the development of a managerial decision, which consists in the daily study of the object of management, its place in the social system, the principles of managing objects of this level.

In the process of management, a moment comes when the subject of management comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to work, guided only by previously made decisions. This occurs in connection with the discovery of difficulties in the functioning of the control object, which must be overcome, and the manifestation of new tasks. If the subject of management believes that it is expedient to solve new problems, then the actual development of management decisions begins.

The first stage in developing a management decision is a targeted study of the management object. The first step in the first stage is the formulation of a common goal to be achieved. This goal can be called the orienting goal.

If the orienting goal is exhaustive and if there are no problems in the implementation of the orienting goal, then the process of cognition can be completed at this point. If there are such problems, then there is a problematic situation, that is, a contradiction between the existing needs and the availability of knowledge and means to satisfy them.

In the event of a problematic situation, the cognition process continues. The problem itself is clarified, and then, in the aspect of the orienting goal, the study of the control object is carried out. The purpose of the study is to create the initial state of the control object.

The second stage of developing a managerial decision is the stage of forming the problem of transferring an object from the current situation to the final state.

At the first stage, an orienting goal is formulated, which is not yet specific. It only expresses the desire of the subject of management to change the existing state of affairs, its general, approximate idea of ​​the desired result. At the second stage, the subject of control again returns to the development of the goal of actions, since the study of the control object from the point of view of the orienting goal showed that clarification and concretization of the goal is required, that is, the orienting goal is, as it were, denied in connection with the creation of an image of the initial state of the control object, reflecting the prevailing situation, and should be revised, clarify this goal. Concretization ends with the development of a specific goal of actions, that is, an image of the final desired state of the control object.

The third stage in the development of a management decision is the creation and analysis of management action projects. At this stage, there is a search for management actions that can ensure the transition from the initial situation of the control object to the final state, and the means for their implementation. Initially, several options (projects) of management actions are created. For each of the options, an image of the final state of the controlled object is developed, taking into account the external environment, and each image of the final state of the controlled object is assessed (taking into account the external environment). As a result of the assessment, the options for management actions are refined or discarded. As a rule, there is only one option for management actions. If it is impossible to give preference to one option, then in many cases this indicates an insufficient study of the object. The third stage should end with the choice of one of the management action projects.

The fourth stage in the development of a management decision is the creation of a draft decision. The choice of managerial actions is not yet a project of a managerial decision, since a managerial decision must contain a description of the situation that has developed at the object of management, as well as a rationale for managerial actions.

The main stages and stages of the logic of developing a management decision are clearly shown in the diagram. The squares indicate the stages of the cognition process, the dashed arrows - the cognitive processes, which consist in returning from the next step to the previous one in order to clarify the result of cognitive activity.

The main ways of proving hypotheses are: deductive substantiation of the hypothesis expressed in the hypothesis; direct detection of the objects suggested in the hypothesis; logical proof of the hypothesis.

Direct detection of the items you are looking for. Private hypotheses in science and versions in forensic research often set themselves the task of identifying the fact that specific objects and phenomena exist at a certain time and place, or answer the question about the properties and qualities of such objects. The most convincing way of converting such an assumption into reliable knowledge is the direct discovery at the assumed time or place of the sought-after objects, or direct perception of the assumed properties.

For example, when investigating criminal cases of embezzlement, an important task is to detect stolen valuables. These values ​​are usually hidden or realized by criminals. In this regard, private versions of the whereabouts of such things and values ​​arise.

Versions proven by direct discovery of the alleged cause are always private. With their help, as a rule, only individual factual circumstances of the case, private parties to the event of a crime are established.

Logical proof of versions. Versions explaining the material circumstances of the investigated cases are converted into reliable knowledge through logical justification. It proceeds in an indirect way, for events that took place in the past, or phenomena that exist at the present time, but are inaccessible to direct perception, are cognized. This is how, for example, versions about the method of committing a crime, about guilt, about the motives for committing a crime, the objective circumstances in which the act was committed, etc. are proved.

The logical proving of a hypothesis, depending on the method of justification, can proceed in the form of indirect or direct evidence.

Indirect proof proceeds by refuting and excluding all false versions, on the basis of which the reliability of the only remaining assumption is asserted.

The conclusion in this conclusion can be regarded as reliable if, firstly, an exhaustive number of versions are built that explain the event under investigation, and, secondly, all false assumptions are refuted in the process of verifying the versions. In this case, the version indicating the remaining reason will be the only one, and the knowledge expressed in it will no longer act as problematic, but as reliable.

Direct proof of a hypothesis proceeds by deriving various consequences from the assumption, but following only from a given hypothesis, and confirming them with newly discovered facts.

In the absence of indirect proof, a simple coincidence of facts with those consequences that were deduced from the version cannot be regarded as a sufficient basis for the truth of the version, because the coinciding facts could have been caused by another reason.

41. Methods of proving a hypothesis. The value of the hypothesis in the activities of a modern specialist.

The main methods of proving hypotheses are as follows: deductive substantiation of the hypothesis expressed in the hypothesis; direct detection of the objects suggested in the hypothesis; logical proof of the hypothesis. Deductive derivation of assumptions has already been considered, and now we will focus on the last two.

Direct detection of the items you are looking for. Private hypotheses in science and versions in forensic research often set themselves the task of identifying the fact that specific objects and phenomena exist at a certain time and place, or answer the question about the properties and qualities of such objects. The most convincing way of converting such an assumption into reliable knowledge is the direct discovery at the assumed time or place of the sought-after objects, or direct perception of the assumed properties.

For example, when investigating criminal cases of embezzlement, as well as robbery, banditry, fraud, etc. an important task of the judicial and investigative authorities is to discover things, valuables and sums of money acquired or accumulated in a criminal way. These values ​​and things, as a rule, are hidden or realized by criminals. In this regard, private versions of the whereabouts of such things and values ​​arise.

Versions proven by direct detection of the alleged cause are always private versions. With their help, as a rule, only individual factual circumstances of the case, private parties to the event of a crime are established.

Logical proof of versions. Versions explaining the material circumstances of the investigated cases are converted into reliable knowledge through logical justification. It proceeds in an indirect way, for events that took place in the past, or phenomena that exist at the present time, but are inaccessible to direct perception, are cognized. This is how, for example, versions about the method of committing a crime, about guilt, about the motives for committing a crime, objective circumstances under which the act was committed, etc. are proved.

The logical proving of a hypothesis, depending on the method of justification, can proceed in the form of indirect or direct evidence.

Indirect proof proceeds by refuting and excluding all false versions, on the basis of which the reliability of the only remaining assumption is asserted.

The conclusion in this conclusion can be regarded as reliable if, firstly, an exhaustive number of versions are built that explain the event under investigation, and, secondly, all false assumptions are refuted in the process of verifying the versions. In this case, the version indicating the remaining reason will be the only one, and the knowledge expressed in it will no longer act as problematic, but as reliable.

This method of proof, proceeding by the method of exclusion, is often used in forensic practice when proving both general and particular versions.

Indirect evidence must be combined with direct support for the remaining assumption.

Direct proof of a hypothesis proceeds by deriving various consequences from the assumption, but following only from a given hypothesis, and confirming them with newly discovered facts.

In the absence of indirect proof, a simple coincidence of facts with those consequences that were deduced from the version cannot be regarded as a sufficient basis for the truth of the version, because the coinciding facts could have been caused by another reason.

Subject to the above conditions, a forensic study comes 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.