The lawyer, like a scientist, spends time considering the importance of supporting all statements with evidence and considers how one might weigh evidence on a scale of weak to strong. What is it that is actually proved by the evidence? However, the lawyer deals in words, reports, reconstructions; the lawyer was not present observing the wrong, the accident, the incident. The scientist can always replay the event, observe the event. So, there is not a strict correlation between the lawyer and the scientist. The logician, like the lawyer, deals in statements expressed in words and symbols called propositions. In the context of logic, the word ‘proposition’ only means making a statement or an assertion about something. Essentially, logic is the study of propositions and how conclusions may be correctly obtained from propositions in the process of reasoned argument. There are two main types of logic: deductive and inductive. There is also a third process: abduction. Each of these processes will be briefly explained. In addition, ‘analogic argument’ (which is really a form of inductive reasoning) will be discussed, because analogic reasoning is the type of reasoning used within the English legal system where the courts argue from precedent to precedent. In fact analysis is a species of inductive reasoning. Reasoning itself is analogous to a journey: (a) prepare/collect information; (b) order/organise information; (c) start working through the information once the direction of travel is clear. When people set out on a journey, they normally have an idea of where they are going. If they do not know where they are going, this is usually a matter of deliberate choice. When people begin to consider argument construction, they need to know where they are going: To begin with the end in mind.’ Many students, however, do not know where they are going, hope they will know when they get there, and often give up exhausted and arbitrarily state ‘Therefore, this is the end’! It is not possible to craft a good argument by accident. Useful information to include as evidence for an argument may be uncovered accidentally; however, the argument can never be accidentally constructed. 7.8 TYPES OF LEGAL REASONING 7.8.1 Deduction Reasoning can be described as a careful journey through various propositions. Movement being allowed by evidence leading to inference. In deductive reasoning, the argument has to follow a prescribed form.

2012 ◽  
pp. 228-228
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Deductive Reasoning ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Good Argument ◽  
Working Through

scholarly journals PENALARAN HUKUM YANG MAMPU MEWUJUDKAN TUJUAN HUKUM SECARA PROPORSIONAL

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 204
Author(s):  
Agus Setiawan
Keyword(s):  
Deductive Reasoning ◽  
Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Behavioral Pattern ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Third ◽  
Symbolic Meanings ◽  
Reasoning Patterns ◽  
The Law

On the activity of legal reasoning, legal objective embodiment in the form of: justice, legal certainty, and kemanfaaan sometimes not achieved proportionately or even forgot or did not understand that the purpose of law should be the third contained proportionally in any legal ruling.  The third objective will be achieved proportionately, by finding the point of the link between the reasoning of the law with the purpose of the law, the law of nature and the methods used to achieve the third objective of the law.The research was carried out using the method of legal research is research that is interdisciplinary collaboration and integration of the disciplines of law and other disciplines, which in this case is a philosophy.  This research is a study of the legal reasoning of how capable of realizing justice, legal certainty and benefit proportionately.  Therefore the examined was how the point links between legal reasoning with the purpose of the law, as well as what is the meaning of the law (the ontological aspect) and what is the method to achieve it (epistemological aspect).Research proves that there is a link between the point of law raised by Gustav Radbruch, namely: justice, legal certainty, and the benefit with the aksiologis of models of legal reasoning advanced by Shidarta.  With regard to the activity of the legal reasoning that is capable of realizing justice, legal certainty, and benefit proportionally; found that all the arguments of yuridik which is a legal ruling made by establishing practical law was supposed to interpret the law as positive norms within the system of legislation that pay attention to the principles of truth and justice universal or moral, the behavioral pattern of the terlembaga, and the symbolic meanings of social actors.Whereas the epistemological aspects of the law which is its method is deductive reasoning patterns doctrinal-in order to be empowered in order to achieve legal certainty and fairness as well as simultaneously using inductive reasoning patterns nondoktrinal-so are empowered to achieve benefit.  The pattern of reasoning is identical with the model of thought problematic tersistematisasi. Keywords: Law, Proportional Reasoning, the purpose of the law.

Deduction can be useful if a new legal rule is being tested to discover whether it is going to clash with any existing legal rule. It can also be useful when precedent is being teased out for the first time and logical consequences need to be tracked. Logic distinguishes between deductive and inductive. An inductive argument can for example have as an inference a generalisation (eg, innocent people do not run away). Figure 7.9: generalisations A generalisation can be quite easily attacked as it is usually constructed on flimsy arguments. But it is also worth remembering that no argument can ever be 100% sound. Remember our system requires less than perfect proof: balance of probabilities in the civil area and beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal law. So, accusing someone of not having a perfect 100% argument is not a good argument! No one has a 100% case. 7.8.2 Induction There is another form of arguing which involves arguments that put forward some general proposition (the conclusion) from fact or facts that seem to provide some evidence for the general given proposition or group of propositions (the premises). This is perhaps the closest to the everyday legal argument when decisions are made concerning which side of a dispute is accorded the privileging of their story in terms of the law’s authority to provide an declaration of right followed by sanction and/or compensation. Inductive reasoning is similar to deductive reasoning in so far as the conclusions are based on premises. However, in inductive reasoning, the conclusion reached extends beyond the facts in the premise. The premise supports the conclusion, it makes it probable. Therefore, there is less certainty and it is possible that another conclusion exists. A sub-division of inductive reasoning is reasoning by analogy or analogous reasoning, this being the method best known to English legal method. The difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning is a closed system of reasoning, from the general to the general or the particular, and includes cases where the conclusion is drawn out; it is, therefore, analytical, whereas inductive reasoning is an open system of reasoning. It involves finding a

2012 ◽  
pp. 230-230
Keyword(s):  
Deductive Reasoning ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
Legal Rule ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Good Argument ◽  
Inductive Argument ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
General Proposition ◽  
The Difference ◽  
First Time

scholarly journals Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Generalization and Replication–A Representationalist View

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Borgstede ◽  
Marcel Scholz
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Boundary Conditions ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Deductive Reasoning ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
Statistical Testing ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Qualitative Approaches ◽  
Case Based

In this paper, we provide a re-interpretation of qualitative and quantitative modeling from a representationalist perspective. In this view, both approaches attempt to construct abstract representations of empirical relational structures. Whereas quantitative research uses variable-based models that abstract from individual cases, qualitative research favors case-based models that abstract from individual characteristics. Variable-based models are usually stated in the form of quantified sentences (scientific laws). This syntactic structure implies that sentences about individual cases are derived using deductive reasoning. In contrast, case-based models are usually stated using context-dependent existential sentences (qualitative statements). This syntactic structure implies that sentences about other cases are justifiable by inductive reasoning. We apply this representationalist perspective to the problems of generalization and replication. Using the analytical framework of modal logic, we argue that the modes of reasoning are often not only applied to the context that has been studied empirically, but also on a between-contexts level. Consequently, quantitative researchers mostly adhere to a top-down strategy of generalization, whereas qualitative researchers usually follow a bottom-up strategy of generalization. Depending on which strategy is employed, the role of replication attempts is very different. In deductive reasoning, replication attempts serve as empirical tests of the underlying theory. Therefore, failed replications imply a faulty theory. From an inductive perspective, however, replication attempts serve to explore the scope of the theory. Consequently, failed replications do not question the theory per se, but help to shape its boundary conditions. We conclude that quantitative research may benefit from a bottom-up generalization strategy as it is employed in most qualitative research programs. Inductive reasoning forces us to think about the boundary conditions of our theories and provides a framework for generalization beyond statistical testing. In this perspective, failed replications are just as informative as successful replications, because they help to explore the scope of our theories.

scholarly journals TIPE PEMBUKTIAN MAHASISWA CALON GURU MATEMATIKA

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 351
Author(s):  
Mu'jizatin Fadiana ◽  
Yulaikah Yulaikah ◽  
Lajianto Lajianto
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Teachers ◽  
Prospective Teachers ◽  
Deductive Reasoning ◽  
Mathematical Proof ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
Tertiary Institution ◽  
Simple Task ◽  
Descriptive Research ◽  
Prospective Mathematics Teachers ◽  
Quantitative Descriptive

The ability to prove formal mathematics is an important ability that must be mastered by undergraduate prospective mathematics teachers. However, students who are prospective mathematics teachers have difficulty in constructing proof in mathematics courses. Therefore, this study aims to explore the tendency of mathematical proof methods for prospective mathematics teachers in second year lectures. The method used in this research is quantitative descriptive research. Participants in this study were 30 prospective mathematics teachers at a tertiary institution in Tuban, East Java. The research instrument is a simple task of compiling mathematical evidence. The results of the study were analyzed using the classification of types of proof by Miyazaki, namely classifying the types of deductive and inductive reasoning. The results showed that prospective mathematics teachers had a greater tendency to use deductive reasoning than using inductive reasoning. Type A proof is the most common type of proof. In addition, around 70% of prospective teachers still experience difficulties in compiling evidentiary tasks.

Methodology of Feminist Legal Research

2020 ◽  
pp. 556-598
Author(s):  
P. Ishwara Bhat
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Social Transformation ◽  
Practical Reasoning ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
Interdisciplinary Approach ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Woman Question ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Integrated Method ◽  
Post Modernism

Feminist legal research involves an integrated method of research focusing on the problems of women in relation to law and legal system. It brings to the surface the subjugated knowledge about women’s experience, asks the woman question, raises consciousness for social transformation and initiates remedial action. The goal of feminist legal research is serving the interests of women by using inductive reasoning. It has historical background which became intensive since 1970s. A sound understanding of feminist perspective supports this kind of research. Various steps include asking the woman question, feminist practical reasoning, consciousness-raising action, and building of feminist knowledge. The latter in turn entails methods of rational empirical position, standpoint feminism, and post modernism. Since truth is a matter of one’s position and differs from person to person, various viewpoints should be considered. Reading between the lines, interdisciplinary approach and use of multi-method help this kind of research.

scholarly journals Peningkatan Hasil Belajar Tematik Melalui Pendekatan Saintifik Pada Peserta Didik Kelas I A SD Inpres Ende 7 Kecamatan Ende Timur Kabupaten Ende Tahun Pelajaran 2018/2019

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-37
Author(s):  
Bergita Nirgaya
Keyword(s):  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Deductive Reasoning ◽  
Empirical Relationship ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Student Activities ◽  
Use Of Time ◽  
Scientific Approach ◽  
A Charge ◽  
Thematic Learning

The purpose of this study was to determine the application of thematic learning with scientific approaches and learning outcomes of class IA students of SD Inpres Ende 7. The type of research used was classroom action research with data collection techniques namely observation techniques, and tests. The results showed that the teacher's activity in the first cycle was not optimal in fostering new experiences that were meaningful and more dominant use of time to discuss themes mathematically, not optimal in making general phenomena available to later draw specific conclusions (inductive reasoning) or otherwise specific phenomena later draw conclusions as a whole (deductive reasoning). Learning outcomes are 36, 36%. In the second cycle there was an increase in teacher and student activities and 100% completeness, with an average of 78.18. It is concluded that thematic learning provides a charge for students to have comprehensive thinking skills (multi aspects), having a rational and empirical relationship. Scientific approach (scientific approach) provides space for students to observe, ask, try, process, present, conclude, and create. Thus students will use the skills to investigate and or inquiry against a phenomenon or symptoms. It is recommended to teachers to optimize the stages of thematic learning with a scientific approach to familiarize students wit

scholarly journals From Effect to Cause: Deductive Reasoning

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-131
Author(s):  
Ricardo Tavares da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Causal Reasoning ◽  
Deductive Reasoning ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
Traditional View ◽  
State Of Affairs

Abstract According to the traditional view, the following incompatibility holds true: in reasoning, either there is warrant (certainty) or there is novelty. If there is warrant, there is not novelty: that would be the case of deductive reasoning. If there is novelty, there is not warrant: that would be the case of inductive reasoning. Causal reasoning would belong to the second group because there is novelty and, therefore, there is not warrant in it. I argue that this is false: reasoning may have novelty and, nevertheless, be a deductive one. That is precisely what happens in (some) causal reasoning. And I will develop the following line of argumentation: one thing is to warrant that some state of affairs exists and other thing is to warrant that warrant. So we may have correct deductive reasoning without having certainty of that correction, like in some cases of causal reasoning.

scholarly journals Legal Truth (Menakar Kebenaran Hukum)

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 89
Author(s):  
Yogi Prasetyo
Keyword(s):  
Deductive Reasoning ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
Correspondence Theory ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Human Knowledge ◽  
Empirical Reality ◽  
Human Reason ◽  
Correspondence Theory Of Truth ◽  
The Law

Law as part of human knowledge have various views on the truth. The legal truth is more likely to be assessed according to the perception and point of view of each one, the truth of the law will be assessed in accordance with the standards of the existing measures on him. Not infrequently respective claims to truth are obtained, causing antagonism and conflict. For that we would need to measure the truth of the law into a theorization. Legal correspondence theory of truth to understand the truth as empirical reality sensory contained in the community, to get this truth by the method of inductive reasoning, which draw conclusions from the events that are specific to the incidence of common law. The coherence theory of truth to understand the law as a result of conceptual ideas of rational logic of human reason, to obtain this truth by the method of deductive reasoning, which draw conclusions from the events that are common to a special legal events. While the pragmatic theory of truth law basing the truth if it can provide benefits for humans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document