Философия/6. Философия науки

Doctor of Philosophy Rakhmatullin R.Yu.

Bashkir state agrarian university, Russia

Denial as a method of scientific knowledge

Denial is a proof of the falsity or invalidity of thosesis [1, p. 179]. This definition implies that the denial - this is a special version of the proof, if proof of the thesis has a study of loyalty, then with the help refute disprove the thesis. Between evidence and rebuttal there is a certain symmetry. If we prove the truth, at the same time refute the lies, and vice versa, refuting lies, we thereby prove contrary to the truth to her.

As in the proof of the thesis can be identified in denial (that is refuted), arguments (i.e., by means of which disproved the thesis) and demonstration (communication method rebuttal arguments with his thesis). Many refutation techniques also coincide with the methods of proof.

There are the following types of denials:

1. Disclaimer Certain statements has the following forms: a) a denial by reductio ad absurdum; b) bringing the refutation of counterexamples; c) a denial by proof of the truth of the situation, contrary to the thesis of denial.

2. Rebuttal evidence (a refutation in the broad sense). Rebuttal evidence as a whole is in the form of criticism of the thesis (thesis rebuttal); b) the arguments of the critics; c) the demonstration of criticism.

The refutation of the thesis

Since the thesis is formulated in a separate judgment, his criticism is constructed in the form of individual statements refuting proof (reduction to absurdity, and so bring counterexamples). It should be noted that the criticism of the arguments and demonstrations does not yet grounds for approval of the falsity of the thesis - they allow you to speak only of the bankruptcy (unproven, unfounded) thesis. Therefore, if you want to prove the falsity of the thesis, it is necessary to criticize the thesis itself. But if this is not possible, then we must be content with the fact that prove the invalidity of the thesis put forward. This is achieved by criticizing the argument or demonstration.

Criticism arguments

As practice shows, often the refutation is not directed against the thesis and arguments against. If you can disprove at least one argument used in the proof, then we can assume that the proof is untenable, the thesis is not adequately substantiated. The arguments can be refuted in various ways. Consider the major ones.

a) rebuttal argument by proving their falseness

The falsity of a separate argument can be proved in the same way as the falsity of the thesis or the individual statements;

b) establishment of failure to prove the truth of arguments, put forward the thesis of.

Sometimes the available data do not allow an unambiguous conclusion about the causes or the properties of the object. For example, a close knowledge-komstva person with the offender is not enough for the approval of their joint participation in the commission of a crime or concealment of a crime;

c) the establishment of invalidity of the argument (proof that driven by the argument itself needs additional verification). For example, judicial review is considered to be refuted by evidence, if the conclusions of the case is not based on true facts and on assumptions that should be yet to prove. The proof will be deemed to have been refuted if, for example, it is determined that the procedural rules (incorrectly held identification, removal of traces at the crime scene, and so on. P.) Had been violated in obtaining information on a case in a court case.

Disclaimer demonstration

As already noted, the proof always takes the form of reasoning (inference). If it is proved that violated any rule of inference, which proceeds in the form of proof, thus, will be denied and the proof itself. In this case if the evidence consists of a series of reasoning, it is sufficient to detect an error in one of them to declare its insolvency in general.

The most common are the following denials demonstrate:

1. Detection of violations of rules of inference in the categorical sillogizme.

2. Establishment of irregularly shaped output (improper modus), if the evidence takes the form of conditional categorical reasoning (for example, if the proof of thought moves from the investigation to the approval of the statement of grounds, or on grounds of denial to the denial of the investigation).

3. Detection of violations of rules utverzhdayusche-denying or negating, approving modus separation-categorical conclusions.

4. Violation of the rules of inductive inference, when based on incomplete induction make a definitive conclusion. Such cases are found in historical science, when a certain historical facts make a clear conclusion [2; 3; 4].

5. It should be borne in mind that a denial made in the form of inductive reasoning is probabilistic.

References:

1. Рахматуллин Р.Ю., Исаев А.А., Линкевич А.Е. Логика: учебное пособие. Уфа: УЮИ МВД РФ, 2010. 197 с.

2. Рахматуллин Р.Ю. Проблема объективности исторического знания или как возможен единый учебник истории // European Social Science Journal. 2014. № 8-3 (47). С. 69-73.

3. Рахматуллин Р.Ю. Проблема объективности философского знания // Научный альманах. 2016. № 1-3 (15). С. 257-259.

4. Рахматуллин Р.Ю. Историческое знание в контексте философии науки // Вестник ВЭГУ. 2015. № 3 (77). С. 129-137.

5. Искандарова А.М., Семенова Э.Р. Индуктивные методы в науке // Вестник научных конференций. 2015. № 3-1 (3). С. 62-63.