What is the difference between mathematical and legal proof?
Hello, dear Ladies and Gentlemen!We've all heard of the concept of proof. They prove theorems in the classroom at school, prove the political correctness or benefit of the proposed course of reforms, and prove the innocence of the accused in court…If you look historically at the development of evidence, you will find that legal evidence developed and honed earlier than others. Many people believe that mathematical proofs were also taken as a model by the court speeches of lawyers.But mathematical and logical proof is very strict in the scientific sense. Public life theses are more complex than scientific ones. Still, there are very strict requirements for legal evidence. After all, the fate of people depends on it.How does it fit together? How is satisfactory rigor achieved in legal practice? How can we scientifically substantiate legal evidence and show its legality and correctness, in addition to the fact that it is approved by the law of the state?Thank you all for your answers.
Good day to all.
Mathematical proof is carried out according to the rules of logic. It is necessary to show that there is a logical connection between the initial assumptions and the thesis. Each individual step is the logical conclusion of a judgment from the initial assumptions or axioms, as well as from previously derived judgments. All proof is a path of small steps, each of which is the correct logical conclusion of one judgment from another.
In legal practice, the methods of proof specified in the law are used (for example, the Civil Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, etc.). All evidence also consists of small steps – evidence of individual parts of the thesis or arguments. But there is no strictly logical following between them, but only a probabilistic, inductive following, which is usually followed and accepted as correct in accordance with the law.
Is legal proof always fraught with errors for this reason? No. Strictly logically, little can be proved. The methods used by lawyers are highly refined and most often give good results. It should be remembered that the construction of physical theories and technical devices also does not rely on strictly logical proof, but only on probabilistic one. At the same time, the machines, fortunately, work quite reliably. On the other hand, no one is immune from psychological mistakes that lead to incorrect proofs, including in mathematics. What svidu thinks is logically perfect may not be.
Legal proofs are strict in their own way and no less reliable in practice than mathematical proofs.