Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
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.
DOI link for 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.
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.
ABSTRACT
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’!
