General characteristics of deductive inferences

Deductive (from the Latin word deductio - deduction) is called the inference,
in which the conclusion about a particular subject of the class is made on the basis
of the class as a whole. Example:
All contracts are agreements. Petrenko concluded the contract. So, Petrenko
concluded an agreement.
Here the conclusion that Petrenko entered into an agreement was made on
the basis of the general provision that "All contracts are agreements".
In deductive reasoning the thought moves from general to separate, single,
therefore, the deduction is usually defined as an inference from general to partial.
Deduction is a logical means of knowing a concrete, unitary basis of general
knowledge. It enriches our knowledge of the individual, makes it possible to
consider separate from the point of view of general laws, to explain concrete,
guided by the general rule.
The mechanism of deductive reasoning is to extend the general position to a
particular case, in bringing the partial case under the general rule. By extending the
general position to a particular particular subject or phenomenon, we acquire new
knowledge of this subject, the knowledge that this object has a sign available to the
whole class, which is in general position. So, based on the general provision of
criminal law science that "Any crime is a socially dangerous act," we make
pronouncements in respect of any crime, for example, careless murder, that it is
also socially dangerous. Knowing that giving a bribe is punishable by
imprisonment for a term up to five years (the general provision), we can say that
both Petrenko, who repeatedly gave a bribe (partial case), may be punished within
a period of up to five years.
Consequently, deduction is knowledge in a separate general, or, in other
words, the knowledge of the general in a separate, individual.
To reach deductive conclusion, it is necessary to have double knowledge,
conclusions:
 1) a conclusion having a general provision or rule, which is subject to a
partial case, and 2) a clause referring to that particular subject or partial case,
which is brought under the general provision.
General provisions are usually ready, in advance known. These include the
laws of science, axioms, scientific positions, principles and other judgments, which
contain knowledge of the general. In legal practice, the general provisions are the
rules of law (articles of codes and other legislative acts), the provisions of the legal
sciences, the guidance of the organs of the court, the prosecutor's office, etc.
Judgments about individual subjects, on the contrary, are expressed, for the
most part, as a direct investigation of them by those who reflect on them. So, in
order to bring a partial case (for example, a specific criminal event) in accordance
with the relevant article of the law (the norm of law), directly investigate this case
or fact, to reveal its essential features; only then will the opportunity to extend the
general position to him. Thus, deductive reasoning is not purely speculative logical
construction, it is connected with the direct study of concrete facts.
Deduction gives conclusions reliable. This is one of her reliance over other
kinds of inferences. If the conclusions of the deductive reasoning are true and
properly connected, then the implications will necessarily be true.
However, if one of the conclusions of the deductive inference is not True,
but probable, then the conclusion in this case will be probable and can not be
reliable. Deductive inferences with probable conclusions are widely used in
judicial practice during the construction of court versions, the expression of
various proposals.
The conclusion of deductive reasoning has a forced character. This means
that when some general position is recognized as true and if it is known that a
partial case is subject to this general provision, then we can not deny the presence
of the general in this particular case.
Depending on which of the judgments the deductive inference is drawn
from, categorical, conditional or distributive, the following types of deductive
reasoning are distinguished: categorical syllogism, conditional syllogisms, and
distributive syllogisms. The term "syllogism" comes from the Greek word
sullogismos - gaining a conclusion or deducing the consequence.
Categorical syllogism, its definition and composition
A categorical syllogism is called a deductive inference, in which both
assumptions are categorical propositions. Example:
Any crime is an act socially dangerous. Theft is a crime
So, a bribe is an act socially dangerous.
Categorical syllogism consists of three judgments: two conclusions and a
conclusion. 3 conclusions and conclusion, in turn, consist of concepts. These
concepts are termed syllogisms. In categorical syllogism distinguish three terms:
less. bigger and medium.
The term, which takes the place of the subject in the conclusion, is called a
shorter term. A smaller term is denoted by the letter S. In our example, the lesser
term is the term "bribe".
The term, which takes the place of the predicate in the conclusion, is called a
larger term. It is denoted by the letter R. In the given syllogism a longer term - the
notion of "an act is socially dangerous".
Larger and smaller terms are termed extreme terms.
Among the NIM term is a concept that is included in both of the conclusions
and is not in the conclusion. The middle term is indicated by the letter M. In the
example given, the term term "crime" is an average term.
The structure of the given syllogism can be written as follows:
M-R S-MS-P.
The average term (M) serves as a link between bigger and smaller terms,
thanks to which it becomes possible from the two judgments of the conclusions to
deduce the third judgment (conclusion), which is new knowledge.
The ratio S-P, as seen from the scheme, is not available in the foundations, it
is established only in the conclusion. The conclusion about the existence of a
certain relationship between S and P is made on the grounds that both of these
terms are related to the same concept (mean term) in the assumptions. From the
fact that S relates to M, and M, in turn, is connected with P, conclude that there is a
relationship between S and P. In the absence of the same middle term, to establish
a connection between the concept WE, WHICH CONSTITUTES, CAN NOT BE.
For example, of the following two judgments: "Any crime is an act socially
unsafe", "Right is an add-on" - you can not get a conclusion, because in these
constitutions there is no general concept (the middle term).
For each of the categorical syllogisms, there are two terms: the middle one
and the extreme one. Depending on which of the extreme terms (greater or lesser)
is included in the conclusion, distinguish a larger and smaller foundation.
The conclusion, which has a longer term of P, is called a larger foundation.
In our example, the proposition is the judgment: "Any crime is an act socially
dangerous."
The conclusion, which has a shorter term S, is called the smaller foundation.
In the example under consideration, it is a statement that "Khabar is a crime".
The larger clause of categorical syllogism is the usual general rule or rule,
and the smaller one is judgment of a particular subject. By extending the general
situation to a partial case, we obtain new knowledge about it.
Axiom of syllogism
Axiom of syllogism is a position that substantiates the validity of the
conclusion from the conclusions of categorical syllogism. She has two following
words:
1. All that is affirmed (or denied) about the subjects of the subject, can argue
(or deny) that "the object of the given" is lashed. His Latin formula was as follows:
dictum de ompi et de pillo (literally - said about everything and nothing), or
shorter: dictum de ompi.
2. The word "a" and "things" mean the very thing: what contradicts the signs
of a thing contradicts the very thing (nota note est nota gay).
The content of these sentences lies in this. If it is known that the class of
objects M has a sign P, then it follows that any particular object S of this class has
the sign of R. Pleklyad, if it is known that all citizens are obliged to observe the
laws of the state, then this means that Petrenko is obliged to adhere to the laws of
the state.
The relationship between the terms S-M-P of categorical syllogism is
accepted to reproduce with the help of circles as a relation between the scope of the
concepts included in the statement. The ratio of the volume of concepts will be as
follows: if the volume of the concept of M falls within the scope of the concept of
P, and the volume of the concept of S falls within the scope of the concept of M,
then the volume of the concept of S is included in the scope of the definition of P.
Accordingly, if it is known that the class of objects M does not contain the
signs of P, then every separate subject S, which belongs to the class M, has no
signs of P. Thus, if it is known that no one can be prosecuted otherwise as in court,
it means that a citizen of Petrenko can not be prosecuted otherwise than by a court
order.
The relation between the terms of S-M-P in terms of volume is as follows: if
the scope of the concept of M is completely excluded from the scope of the
definition of P, and the volume of the concept of S is included in the scope of the
concept of M, the scope of the notion S is completely excluded from the scope of
the concept of P.
 Similarly, the second formula of the axioms can be explained: if the thing A
has the sign B, and the sign B, in turn, has the sign C, it means thatA also has the
sign S.
General rules for categorical syllogism
In order for the true conclusions to be made to the true conclusion, it is
necessary to adhere to such rules of syllogism,
1. In each syllogism there should be only three terms, no more and no less.
This rule follows from the essence of categorical syllogism as an inference,
in which the relation between the two extreme terms S and P is established on the
basis of their connection with the third - medium term M.
If in the foundations there are not three but two terms, for example: "Any
crime is an act socially dangerous", "Some socially dangerous acts do not contain
signs of a crime" - then there is no concept with which One of the terms of
syllogism is one of the terms. In such a case, one can not deduce from the
provisions of the third judgment that would be different from the conclusion,
without being a tautology, and would not contradict any implication.
If there are four terms in the syllogism, then there will not be an average
term in it, and, consequently, it is impossible to establish a relationship between
the concepts included in the conclusions. The conclusion drawn from such findings
will be false: we will assume a logical error, which will be called quaternary terms
(quaternio terminorum). This error is often observed in cases where, in the medium
term, they take the same sounds or spellings (homonyms) of different meanings.
Example:
The laws are objective, they do not depend on the will and desire of people.
The constitution is a law.
Consequently, the constitution does not depend on the will and the will of
people.
in this syllogism there are not three, but four terms, since the layer "law" is
taken in the constitutions with different meanings. In the majority of the law, we
understand the "law of science", and in the smaller "legal" law. Consequently, the
average term in this syllogism is absent, so the conclusion is false.

2. The average term should be distributed at least in one of the findings.

 If the average term is distributed, that is, it is taken in equal volumes, then a
single relation between 8 and R. is established. Some other relationship between
the extreme terms (S and P) is impossible.
If the average term is not distributed in any of the foundations, then between
8 and P can be established not one but several relationships, depending on which
part of the volume refers to the extreme terms. Example:
Some social norms (M) are legal (P). The norms of morality (S) are social
norms (M).
So, ...
 Here the average term ("social norms") is not distributed in both of the
foundations, so between 8 and P may be different ratio:
1) it can be the case when 8 entering M is completely excluded from the
volume P. Then from the following conclusions one should draw a conclusion:
"Norms of morality are not legal norms" ("None of S is not a");
2) the relation between 8 and P may also be such that when M is included in
P. In this case, from our conclusions one should draw a conclusion: "All norms of
morality are legal norms" ("All S sР");
3) the relationship between S and P. Then two conclusions can be made:
"Some moral norms are legal" ("Some S is R") and "Some norms of morality are
not legal norms" ("Some S are not R").
 Obviously, with the undividedness of the average terms of the dialect, one
can deduce not one but several conclusions. the true conclusion can not be
obtained.
3. The term, not distributed in the founding, can not be divided into a
conclusion.
This rule means that in the conclusion the term syllog can be taken in full, if
in the conclusion of the part of its volume. Take an example:
Language (M) is not a superstructure (P). Language (M) is a social
phenomenon (S).
So, ...
Here the smaller term S ("social phenomenon") falls into sleep.