A Critical Study of G. H. A Juynboll's Methodology in the Study of Hadith

This article analyzes methodology of an Orientalist, G. H. A Juynboll in Hadīth. He is one of those western scholars who has focused on the second primary source of Islamic Law and has developed skeptical theories related to its authenticity and provenance. He relied on early scholars' theories in this discipline and supported their thesis with a bulk of arguments from the early Classical Islamic Sources. A follow-up of his methodology reveals some scientific methodological errors in his studies on Hadīth that led him to a false conclusion. This study discusses the loopholes in his methodology and supports every point with illustrative examples from his works, revealing that Juynboll followed a selective method in his studies and reached his desired/concocted conclusion.

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THE CONCLUSION OF THE HANDWRITING EXPERTS

The thesis is aimed at considering situations that arise during the performance of handwriting examinations in which conclusions are possible that have various legal consequences for the parties to the trial. This is because of the fact that when assigning a handwriting examination, there are situations when a small number of signature samples are provided for a comparative study or the interested party of the torturer misleads the expert by providing false signature samples. By carefully studying the case materials, the expert manages to establish additional samples of signatures, which are not mentioned in the document on the appointment of a handwriting examination. It helps the expert to determine and come to a categorical conclusion which case the signature in the document under study was affixed not by the person himself, but by another person. Or confirm the fact with one hundred percent certainty that the signature was made by one of the relatives. In such cases, if it were not for additional samples from the case materials, it is possible for an expert to come to a false conclusion. The question may arise whether the expert violates sub-clause 3, clause 2.3. Instructions, the expert is prohibited from: “independently collecting materials that are subject to research, as well as choosing outgoing data for the examination, if they are displayed ambiguously in the materials provided to him/her”. But clause 2.1. of the Instruction state that the expert has the right to indicate in his conclusion the facts revealed during the examination that are significant for the case, but regarding which he/she was not asked questions and the circumstances that contributed (could contribute) to the commission of the offense.

Expert's Subscription and the Procedure for its Registration when Assigning a Forensic Examination

Currently, due to the principle of adversarial proceedings, almost every expert's opinion is accompanied by its review by a specialist engaged by one or another party to the process. One of the shortcomings reflected in the reviews is a violation of the procedure for subscribing to the expert's warning of criminal liability for giving a deliberately false conclusion under article 307 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. Failure to comply with this very important procedure may result in the recognition of the expert's opinion as inadmissible evidence. In our opinion, the analysis of judicial practice and procedural rules governing this procedure, as well as the proposed recommendations, will help law enforcement entities in assessing the expert's opinion and its admissibility as evidence in the case.

The Rule of Contradictory Pairs, Insolubles and Validity

The Oxford Calculator Roger Swyneshed put forward three provocative claims in his treatise on insolubles, written in the early 1330s, of which the second states that there is a formally valid inference with true premises and false conclusion. His example deployed the Liar paradox as the conclusion of the inference: ‘The conclusion of this inference is false, so this conclusion is false’. His account of insolubles supported his claim that the conclusion is false, and so the premise, referring to the conclusion, would seem to be true. But what is his account of validity that can allow true premises to lead to a false conclusion? This article considers Roger’s own account, as well as that of Paul of Venice, writing some sixty years later, whose account of the truth and falsehood of insolubles followed Roger’s closely. Paul endorsed Roger’s three claims. But their accounts of validity were different. The question is whether these accounts are coherent and support Paul’s claim in his Logica Magna that he endorsed all the normal rules of inference.

Impact of Advancement in Technology, False Conclusion of Real Estate Bubble, Record Low Mortgage Delinquency, Irresponsible Media, U.S. Economic Policy Disaster: Evidence Supporting Eddison Walters Risk Expectation Theory of The Global Financial Crisis of 2007 and 2008

Data analysis in recent studies by the current researcher presented evidence suggesting the existence of a real estate bubble preceding the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 and 2008 was a false conclusion. Data analysis from Walters (2019) resulted in 194.041 Mean Dependent Variable, 0.989 Adjusted R-square, 5.908 Square Error of Regression, and 488.726 Sum-of-Square Residual, from nonlinear regression analysis with the independent variable of “advancement in technology”, which proved to be the most significant factor causing the dependent variable of “home purchase price” to increase preceding the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 and 2008. Based on the findings of data analysis in Walters (2019), the researcher concluded the data confirmed the assertion agreed upon by Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, it was impossible to have a real estate bubble, while citing the Efficient Market Hypothesis in 2005. Subsequent to 2005, alternative attempts to explain the existence of a real estate bubble were made by both former Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board. Subprime lending and low interest rates were ruled out as the cause of the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 and 2008 in Walters (2019). As a result of the findings from Walters (2019), further investigation to gain an understanding of the impact of how the rapid adaption of advancement in technology influence on the rapid increase in home purchase price preceding the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 and 2008 is required. The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of the role the rapid adaption of advancement in technology played in the mortgage industry and real estate industry in the United States, and the influence on to the rapid increase in home purchase prices preceding the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 and 2008 as a result of the changes. Insight into the rapid transformation of the mortgage industry and the real estate industry in the United States, and the role the transformation played in the crisis is a critical factor to understanding the impact of advancement in technology on the real estate market in the United States preceding the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 and 2008. Failure to consider the impact of rapid adaption of advancement in technology on the mortgage industry and real estate industry, and the transformation of the real estate market preceding the Global Financial Crisis 2007 and 2008, was a significant error which led to the false conclusion of the existence of a real estate bubble. An understanding of how the rapid transformation of the real estate market as a result of advancement in technology in the United States preceding the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 and 2008, will provide the critical knowledge to evaluate mistakes leading to the false conclusion of a real estate bubble preceding the crisis. The information gained from the current study will help avoid a future financial crisis of the same magnitude.

FEATURES OF EXPERT RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF LOCK PICK ON THE INNER SURFACES OF CYLINDER MECHANISMS OF LOCKS

The features of the expert study of traces from the effects of foreign objects on the inner surfaces of the cylinder mechanisms are considered. With the trasological examination of locks, most experts after examining the external and internal surfaces of the cylinder mechanisms of locks, unlocked by various types of keys, falsified or selected keys, ambiguously understand the mechanism of their trace formation, which can sometimes lead to a false conclusion. The purpose of the work is to present the results of the investigation of the mechanism of trace formation and localization of signs of exposure of foreign objects (lock pick, selected or fake keys) on the internal surfaces of the cylinder mechanisms of locks and recommendations to forensic experts in drawing conclusions during the course of the Trasological research. The mechanism of trace formation is considered, the characteristic and classification of traces of exposure to foreign objects are provided (lock pick, selected or fake keys). Groups of lock pick are identified, which are most often found in the Commission of criminal offenses, for their further research. A number of experimental studies have been carried out to study and analyze the mechanism of trace formation, as well as to localize the signs of influence of certain groups of lock pick on the internal surfaces of the cylinder mechanisms of the lock. The progress of the experimental studies has been described in stages. The results of the research on the opening of the cylinder mechanisms of locks are presented with various types of lock pick, depending on their design features. The illustrations explain the conditions for the location of traces on the relevant parts of the cylinder mechanisms of locks from the influence of the respective groups of lock pick. The results of an experimental study are summarized and conclusions are made on the possible conditions for the mechanism of trace formation. Recommendations to judicial experts on the formulation of conclusions in the course of trasological studies of cylinder locking mechanisms are proposed.

Anti-consensus: detecting trees that have an evolutionary signal that is lost in consensus

In phylogenetics, a set of gene trees is often summarized by a consensus tree, such as the majority consensus, which is based on the set of all splits that are present in more than 50% of the input trees. A “consensus network” is obtained by lowering the threshold and considering all splits that are contained in 10% of the trees, say, and then computing the corresponding splits network. By construction and in practice, a consensus network usually shows the majority tree, extended by a number of rectangles that represent local rearrangements around internal nodes of the consensus tree. This may lead to the false conclusion that the input trees do not differ in a significant way because “even a phylogenetic network” does not display any large discrepancies. To harness the full potential of a phylogenetic network, we introduce the new concept of an anti-consensus network that aims at representing the largest interesting discrepancies found in a set of gene trees. We provide an efficient algorithm for computing an anti-consensus and illustrate its application using a set of gene trees from species and strains in the genus Kosakonia.

Propositional attitude statements

Propositional attitude statements – statements about our beliefs, desires, hopes and fears – exhibit certain logical peculiarities. For example, in apparent violation of Leibniz’s law of the indiscernibility of identicals, we cannot freely substitute expressions which designate the same object within such statements. According to Leibniz’s law, every instance of the following scheme is valid: - a = b - F(a) - Therefore, F(b) The validity of Leibniz’s law seems beyond question. It says, in effect, that if an object has a certain property, then anything identical to that object also has that property. Valid instances abound. But consider the following apparently invalid instance: - Hesperus is Phosphorus - Hammurabi believed that Hesperus often rose in the evening - Therefore, Hammurabi believed that ‘Phosphorus’ often rose in the evening. If we take ‘Hammurabi believed that…often rose in the evening’ to serve as the predicate F and ‘Hesperus’ and ‘Phosphorus’ to be a and b respectively, this argument appears to be an instance of Leibniz’s law. Yet (3) apparently fails to follow from (1) and (2). Hammurabi believed that Hesperus and Phosphorus were two heavenly bodies not one. And he believed that Hesperus did, but that Phosphorus did not rise in the evening. We have derived a false conclusion from true premises and an apparently valid law. If that law is really valid, then our argument had better not be a genuine instance of the law. The tempting conclusion, widely accepted, is that we were wrong to construe propositional attitude statements as simple predications. We should not, that is, construe ‘Hammurabi believed that…often rose in the evening’ to be just a long predicate with the semantic function of attributing some property to the object commonly denoted by ‘Hesperus’ and ‘Phosphorus’. But then the question arises: if attitude reports are not simple predications, what are they? Philosophers have disagreed sharply in their answers. Moreover, their disagreements are intimately connected to a wide range of deep issues about the nature of meaning and reference.

Fallacies

Fallacies are common types of arguments that have a strong tendency to go badly wrong, or to be used as deceptive tricks when two parties reason together. In some instances they are simply careless errors in thinking, while in other cases they are techniques of argumentation used by one arguer more or less deliberately to try to fool another into accepting a false conclusion. Fallacies have been described in logic textbooks since the time of Aristotle; their study, long neglected, has begun to be revived in recent years, as its practical importance in natural language reasoning has become apparent.