Epistemic modality in Russian. Deontic modality. Self-test questions

Physical modality

Physical modality is also called ontological, i.e. inherent in being, and causal (based on cause-and-effect patterns).

Physically necessary something, the denial of which violates the laws of nature, i.e. physically impossible.

Example: It is physically necessary that all living things are born and die.

Physically possible a statement that does not contradict the laws of nature. Moreover, if both a given statement and its negation are physically possible, then it is physically random.

Examples: It is physically possible that Kutuzov won a victory at Maloyaroslavets. It is physically accidental that our house is built on a mountain.

Physically impossible a statement that contradicts natural laws.

Example: It is physically impossible that a crocodile is toothless and a hedgehog without spines.

The rules of relationships between physical modalities are absolutely similar to the laws of logical modalities. Moreover, if we compare the logical and physical modalities with each other, it will become clear that the broadest modal concept is the operator “logically possible” - truths do not exist beyond it. The concept of “physically possible” is significantly narrower - it is limited by the laws of our world, i.e. all the laws of natural sciences. The volume of what is physically necessary is even narrower; it is a circle of phenomena and objects that actually exist. The narrowest modal concept is the concept of “logically necessary” - these are only logical laws and everything that necessarily follows from them. Obviously, most of the actual world lives within the limits of the logically possible, but beyond the limits of the logically necessary.

Logical and ontological modalities are called alethic(from the Greek "alethos" - not hidden, true, direct).

Epistemic modality (from the Greek “episteme” - knowledge) expresses the degree of reliability of knowledge:

proven something that has received scientific justification and practical confirmation.

Example: It has been proven that a balanced diet has a beneficial effect on the appearance of dogs;

problematic something that at the moment may turn out to be either true or false.

Example: Russia is probably the birthplace of elephants;

refuted means that the opposite (contrary to the given) has been proven.

Example: It has been denied that Salieri poisoned Mozart.

The relations of epistemic modalities are similar to alethic ones. Their main laws:

Nothing can be proven and disproven at the same time;

What is proven cannot be problematic, and vice versa;

What is problematic cannot be refuted, and vice versa;

- “knowledge is problematic” means that this knowledge is neither proven nor disproved, and vice versa.

Modality (from the word “modus” - method) is the superstructure of the semantic component over the logical. A general statement (judgment) is placed within the modal framework for the perception of information, which is established by the speaker himself, expanding or narrowing the boundaries of his thinking, in which the single meaning of the expression is considered. If truth is the independent relation of a statement to reality, then modality is the attitude of the speaker to a given statement.

Any expression is built from three components - an object (subject), a predicate and a connective. An object is something that a person thinks about, to which he attributes various properties and actions. For example, “all metals conduct electricity.” The property of conductivity is attributed to a metal (object). Objects are also called individual concepts that form or co-constitute a thought.

True expression does not include the activity of the subject, although the subject (as the presence of a holistic consciousness in the general picture of the world) participates as an outside witness in the process of cognition and reasoning.

For example, the expression “it’s snowing outside the window” - here the “conditional subject” is an independent object - “snow”, the predicate is “it’s snowing outside the window”. If at the time of the statement it is really snowing outside the window, then the expression becomes true. Otherwise, it is false. The word “snow,” if considered from the point of view of linguistic thinking, takes on the role of a grammatical subject—the subject.

The subject in the traditional sense is defined as human consciousness and its contents (sensations). The subject is the one who experiences the situation in time. Snow, as a natural phenomenon, cannot survive it. But the whole situation is presented precisely from this reporting point. Reality is simplified to operating only with relationships between external objects.

As soon as the activity of the subject of personality is included in the event, the information is placed in a modal frame. The judgment acquires an additional ontological (Greek: on, ontos - existing, logos - teaching) meaning. Ontology takes the changing essence and spirituality as the basis of the world. In philosophy, metaphysical consciousness or metaphysical subject is also noted.

Use of modalities in the sciences

In psychology (in NLP), the modal meanings of phrases and their replacement affect the rethinking of information by a person (patient). They are used as key points to expand a person's information about himself. For example, the phrase “you can’t sunbathe under the moon” - the event is considered impossible, and interest in it disappears. If you replace “sunbathing under the moon is possible, but not effective”, then it continues the thought and the stated theory.

Types of logical judgments

When a subjective assessment (opinion) is expressed and coincides with the rules of logical thinking, neutral judgments are obtained. They can be included in the system of general modalities; they are truly logical.

Assertoric are all judgments in the affirmative form. They describe real phenomena and situations as they are. For example, “ripe apples are red”, “after summer comes autumn” - these are affirmative statements. All proposals are divided according to the principle of excluding the third, into confirming and refuting information, and take the form of an ordinary “faceless” narrative.

Negation is accompanied by a negation operator (“not”, “no, not true”). For example, “it is not true that after summer comes winter.” This type of judgment falls within the sphere of visible reality and does not include a subjective component, such as in the examples given: “it’s good that autumn comes after summer” or “it is necessary that the baked pie is delicious.”

Another type of affirmative judgments are apodictic (evidential), expressing the “necessity” of a particular phenomenon. For example, “The base of the pyramid is a triangle” - the statement has a proof within the framework of mathematical sciences. Another example, from astrophysics - “The Earth revolves around the sun”; there is no other way to explain the structure of the universe, the change of day and night on Earth. The fact is not only scientifically proven, but is also the basis for the continuation of life on the planet. The statement will have a true meaning under any conditions. Such information about the world is called universal.

Based on the rules of traditional logic, mathematical algorithms and computer programs are constructed. However, a person, unlike a computer, can afford to direct thoughts into the future, express ideas, hypotheses. Therefore, all theoretical reasoning is built within the framework of modal logics. Naturally, not every spontaneous thought is feasible and meets human expectations.

For example, “it is possible that there is life on Mars” - we cannot fully accept this statement as true - a person has knowledge about the planet Mars only indirectly (no one has flown there or observed signs of life with their own eyes), but also accept it as false Without evidence to the contrary, it is impossible. Such judgments are problematic in nature and are called alethic. This includes both logical statements and ontological ones.

With Vikium you can develop your brain according to an individual program

Alethic types of judgment

The operators of alethic modality are the words “possibly”, “impossible”, “accidentally”, “necessary”. Let's look at the types of operators using an example:

1. Random - these are isolated statements, which are considered within the framework of some unique, specific event. A good example is the historical event - “On April 12, 1961, the first manned flight into space took place.” The event accidentally coincided with the calendar date. The number and the accomplished fact have a relationship of chance between themselves (the flight could have been carried out with equal probability on April 16 and April 20).
2. Possible (impossible) are judgments, describing the probability of the occurrence of any fact in reality. In this case, preliminary accumulation of information and tracing of signs of a pattern occurs. From this side, all potential events that are connected in one system of phenomena can be equally realized in the world. For example, “it is possible that it will rain in Moscow.” The expectation of precipitation in Moscow may be confirmed over time, or it may not (“no” - in cases of weather clearing - the onset of another alternative event, in order of time sequence).
3. Necessity - this modal operator indicates the need to connect two phenomena. In most cases, it describes the property of a real object (object), based on its natural essence and physical relationship with others that constitute the conditions for the manifestation of this property. For example, “it is necessary that ultraviolet rays destroy bacteria and viruses.”

Epistemological (from the Greek episteme - knowledge) - expresses the degree of acceptance of certain knowledge by the subject. The operators of epistemological modality are “know”, “believe”, “convinced”, “proven”. The statement contains information obtained indirectly, or there is a problem of provability of knowledge. For example, “I believe that God exists,” “I know that it can be cold in the fall.”

The expression that is conveyed using the epistemic operator is not a present fact or a real connection between them (and has almost nothing to do with it). It is given in its entirety to the subject, as a logical conclusion. It follows, as a conclusion, from other knowledge tested by experience. The level of reliability depends on the subjective feeling, the person’s belief in what he is saying. In this, the epistemological modality is almost similar to the alethic one. In contrast, problematic statements, such as those about God, have no way of being proven in any way.

Deontic modality

Deontic judgments refer to expressions in ready-made systems created by society - legal, moral, ethical and even mathematical. The object is considered from the point of view of established rules. The operators of deontic judgments are “allowed”, “prohibited”, “should”. In some cases, their meaning contains a connotation of advice or instruction. For example, “one should respect the free will of another person.”

An event or action may be physically (or technically) possible, but is not justified from the point of view of the realm of deontic logic. It involves the social mind - one of the states of consciousness that is formed under the influence of the society or religion where a person lives. For example, from a logical point of view - slavery is neither good nor bad - if it exists, then the judgment about it will be true, as will the description of the system of slavery. From a legal point of view, it is a violation of human rights and freedoms.

Axiological modality

Information expressed in the form of this modality relates to morality and ethics, the rules of human behavior in society. The operators of axiological statements are “good”, “bad”. With their help, a person evaluates his own and others’ actions, determines the sides of good and evil. For example, “it’s bad to interrupt elders in conversation”, “the picture is painted quite well.”

Modality designations in language

Modal logic refers to ways of producing expression languages. In the language, operator synonyms are scattered across semantic fields depending on the text or the whole work. It is even more difficult to identify the logical meaning of a phrase in a foreign language.

In order to bring phrases with modal verbs into one category, it is necessary to master a more abstract form and compare the semantic meaning of the word with the modal one. In this, knowledge about modal categories is not a replaceable thing. With its help, phrase templates are used to produce new expressions.

Epistemic modality - this is information expressed in a judgment about the grounds for its acceptance and validity. The most important factors are logical and extra-logical factors, which differ in the reasons for their acceptance. The first type is opinion-based judgments expressing knowledge. According to the degree of validity among knowledge, two non-overlapping judgments are distinguished: reliable and problematic.

Reliable judgments - these are sufficiently justified true or logical judgments.

Problematic judgments. Problematic are judgments that cannot be considered reliable due to their insufficient validity.

In natural language, introductory words usually serve as indicators of the problematic nature of a judgment: apparently, probably, it seems, perhaps, one can assume and etc.

The validity of problematic judgments can be represented in terms of probability theory. Validity, as an objective logical characteristic of a judgment, should be distinguished from the concept of confidence, which expresses a person’s subjective psychological attitude to a statement, his willingness to accept or refute the corresponding judgments.

If the probability assessment of a judgment directly affects the degree of confidence, That the opposite is not always the case. A high degree of confidence does not mean that it arose as a result of the validity of the judgment; various kinds of interests, inclinations, and biases can influence here.

Deontic modality of judgments

Deontic modality - this is an expression in judgment, prescribed in the form of advice, wishes, rules of conduct or order, prompting a person to take specific actions. For example:

“The contractor is obliged to perform the work stipulated by the contract from his ownits material and by its own means, unless otherwise established by lawnom or agreement."

Deontic statements include various kinds of normative statements, including rules of law, i.e. Generally binding rules of behavior officially adopted by the authorized body that regulate legal relations in the social environment, failure to comply with which entails the application of legal sanctions.

The necessary elements of the legal form are the following components, explicitly or implicitly expressed in it:

addressee - persons who must comply with the order;

disposition - actions to be performed;

deontic characteristic of the norm - determines the type of prescription;

sanction - legal consequences of failure to comply with an order.

In a legal relationship, a right always corresponds to an obligation, and vice versa, every obligation corresponds to a certain right.

Right and obligation are expressed using deontic operators: O - obligations; F - prohibition; R - resolution.

Symbol d indicate the controlled action, symbols x, y, z - subjects of legal relations.

In accordance with deontic operators, legal norms are distinguished: (1) legally binding; (2) prohibitory; (3) grantors.

Legally binding norms are formulated using the words: “obliged”, “should”, “should”, “recognized”.

For example: “A transaction made by a citizen declared incompetent due to a mental disorder is void. Each sidesuch a transaction is obliged to return to the other everything received in kind, and if notthe opportunity to return what was received in kind - to reimburse its costthe bridge is in money.”

Symbolically, legal obligation can be expressed as follows: O(d), what does "action" mean? d is subject to mandatory execution."

Prohibitory norms are formulated using the words: "prohibitsxia", "not entitled", "not allowed" and others.

Symbolic legal prohibitions can be expressed as follows: F{ d), which means: "actiondforbidden".

For example: “The pawnshop has no right to use or dispose of the hallwifely things."

“A bank guarantee cannot be revoked by the guarantor unless it provides otherwise.”

Legal norms are formed using the words: "It hasright", "may have", "may accept".

For example: “The management may present a demand to the court, arbitration court or arbitration tribunal for early termination of the employment contract,”

“The employer has the right to refuse the household project at any time.”

Symbolic permission can be expressed as follows: P(d), those. granted the right to perform d.

The operators of obligation and prohibition are strong deontic characteristics, while permission is a weak characteristic.

Obligation and permission can be expressed in terms of each other: the obligation to perform an action is equivalent to the prohibition not to perform it:

Permission is determined through obligation and prohibition:

P(d) = O(d) F(d).

Permission to perform an action d means that execution d not required and not prohibited.

Logic: a textbook for law schools Kirillov Vyacheslav Ivanovich

§ 2. EPISTEMIC MODALITY

§ 2. EPISTEMIC MODALITY

Epistemic modality is information expressed in a judgment about the grounds for acceptance and the degree of its validity.

The exchange of information between people in the process of communication presupposes a clear understanding of the grounds for acceptance or non-acceptance of opinions, assessments, factual data, etc. expressed in statements. The acceptance of statements depends on many objective and subjective factors. The most important among them are brain teaser And extra-logical factors that predetermine two epistemic types of judgments, differing in the grounds for their acceptance. The first type is opinion based judgments expressing faith; second type - logical judgments expressing knowledge.

Faith. Non-logical factors influencing the making of judgments include: the opinion of authorities, pragmatic interest, traditions, collective and individual suggestion, and others. This kind of influence can lead to uncritical acceptance of other people’s opinions and the formation of various kinds of beliefs on their basis. In terms of their social orientation, beliefs can be either progressive (belief in a just cause) or reactionary - various kinds of nationalist doctrines, religious fanaticism and other beliefs. By epistemic status faith is a spontaneous, uncritical acceptance of other people's opinions, true or false, progressive or reactionary.

If the modal operator IN indicate belief, i.e. acceptance of a statement R without justification, then the expression V(p) will mean: " R accepted on the basis of faith."

Knowledge. The factor of logical influence is the acceptance of a judgment as true or false due to its validity by other judgments, from which the accepted judgment logically follows as a consequence. A feature of rationally oriented cognition is the acceptance of only such judgments that are based on a reliably established empirical or theoretical foundation of proven judgments. This kind of justified judgment acquires the epistemic status of knowledge: K(r), Where TO is a modal operator denoting “knowledge”.

According to the degree of validity among knowledge, two non-overlapping classes of judgments are distinguished: 1) reliable and 2) problematic.

1) Reliable judgments are sufficiently justified true or false judgments. Their truth or falsity is established either by direct verification, or indirectly, when the judgment is confirmed by empirical or theoretical provisions.

The modality of such judgments can be expressed using the operators: evidence ( verification) - V and refutability ( falsification) - F. Judgment R proven if it is sufficiently justified: Vp. If the denial of the judgment is sufficiently justified, i.e. not-p, then such a judgment is also considered proven: V?r. For example, the proposition “It is not true that N. took direct part in the commission of a crime” is proven if an alibi is established, i.e. the fact that N. was in another place during the commission of the crime.

Thus, any reliably established judgment can be spoken of as proven, or verified, i.e. Vр? V?r.

Credible propositions can be expressed using the falsifiability operator: Fр? F?r.

The operators of proof and falsification can be expressed one through the other. Yes, proof R is equivalent to a refutation not-p, and proof not-p is equivalent to a refutation R. This equivalence can be represented as follows:

Vp? F?р;

V?r? Fр.

Reliability refers to such a modal characteristic of a judgment, which, like the concepts of truth and falsity, does not change in degrees. It cannot be said of two statements that one is “more reliable” than the other. If the judgment is sufficiently substantiated, it is considered proven, thereby reliable, that is, true or false without changing in degree.

It should be noted that, psychologically, reliable knowledge is characterized by absence of doubt in the truth of the corresponding judgment. However, the absence of doubt in itself does not indicate the reliability of the judgment, which is recognized as such only if there are appropriate grounds - logical or empirical.

2) Problematic judgments are judgments that are not sufficiently substantiated.. The truth or falsity of such judgments is not precisely established, so they are called problematic, plausible, or probable.

In natural language, introductory words usually serve as indicators of the problematic nature of a judgment: “apparently”, “probably”, “appears”, “possibly”, “one can assume”, etc. For problematic judgments the following expression is accepted: “ S is probably P" The problematic nature of any judgment ( R) can be expressed by the operator R; expression RR reads: " Probably p».

The problematic nature of judgment R can be expressed in terms of evidence and refutation:

Рр = ?Vр? ?Fp.

In forensic research, in the form of problematic judgments, versions (hypotheses) are built about the circumstances of the cases under investigation. They guide the investigation in the right direction and help establish reliable results.

The requirement of proof applies to all judgments in legal proceedings. A conviction in a criminal case and a court decision in a civil case must be based on reliably established circumstances of each specific case. Only in this case the court decision is considered fair.

The validity of problematic judgments can be represented in terms of probability theory. The logical probability of a judgment means the degree of its validity. If we denote probability by the symbol R, then for any judgment R its probability takes on the value 0 ? R(r) ? 1. 0 And 1 act as the limits of justification, expressing reliable meaning. So, P(p) = 0 means that R falsified or refuted ( R false). Since the probability of a problematic judgment takes a numerical value in the interval between 0 And 1 , i.e. 0 < Р(р) < 1 , it is usually expressed as a fraction, for example, P(p) = 1/3 or P(p) = 0.2. If P(p) = 1, it means that R verified or proven ( R true).

In the simplest cases, when they operate with grounds of the same type and equal in their logical strength, the degree of probability of a judgment is determined by the ratio of the number of favorable grounds ( m) to their total number ( n): Р(р) = m/n. So, if for judgment R of 10 bases ( n) 8 turned out to be favorable ( m), then the degree of its validity, or logical probability, will be expressed as a fraction 8/10 = 4/5 , i.e. P(p) = 4/5.

If all 10 possible reasons are favorable, the probability will be expressed by the ratio P(p) = 10/10 = 1. This means that the statement R considered reliable. If all 10 reasons turn out to be unfavorable, then the probability R will be equal 0 : P(p) = 0/10 = 0. It means that R is evaluated as false.

In most cases, statements of different types and differing in evidentiary value act as grounds. They are usually evaluated meaningfully, taking into account the different “weight” of each of them. In ordinary reasoning, one often resorts to the following approximate gradation of probabilities:

1) P(p) = 1/3 - “p” unlikely;

2) P(p) = 1/2 - “p” equally likely;

3) P(p) > 1/2 - “p” more likely than not;

4) P(p) > 2/3 - “p” very likely.

Practically and theoretically justified evaluative standards make it possible to objectively determine in a probabilistic form the actual logical meaning of problematic judgments.

Validity as an objective logical characteristic of a judgment should be distinguished from the concept confidence, expressing a person’s subjective psychological attitude to a statement, his willingness to accept or reject the corresponding judgment. When they say, for example, “I am sure that X committed a crime”; “I am convinced that the witness is mistaken”; “I believe that the accused incorrectly describes the circumstances of the crime,” then, as a rule, they express a subjective attitude to the content of the statements - a tendency to accept or reject the information expressed in them.

When a researcher shows impartiality and sets out to find objective truth, his sense of confidence is determined by rational, logical grounds and depends primarily on the degree of validity of the judgment.

If the probabilistic assessment of a judgment directly affects the degree of confidence, then the opposite is not always the case. A high degree of confidence does not mean that it arose as a result of the validity of the judgment. In addition to logical grounds, a feeling of confidence can arise under the influence of other, extra-logical factors that are not always clearly recognized and not always controlled. These include various kinds of interests, utilitarian considerations, subjective inclinations, habits, etc. What is desired in this case can unintentionally be passed off as reality.

That is why, when analyzing a judgment that is important in practical terms, one should distinguish between such logically verifiable modal characteristics as the degree of validity and a subjective feeling of confidence in the truth of this judgment. In scientific research and in the activities of a lawyer, the validity of a judgment, expressed in appropriate motivation, should be the leading factor determining the formation of subjective confidence, without which there is also no revelation of the truth.

Self-test questions

1. What is epistemic modality? What types is it divided into?

2. Which operators express reliable and problematic judgments?

3. How is probability theory used to support problematic judgments?