Volume 04 Issue 02-2024
87
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
02
P
AGES
:
87-91
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
993
)
(2022:
6.
015
)
(2023:
7.
164
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
As we know, there are deduction, induction, and analogy types of inference. Analogy (Greek - compatibility, similarity)
means. In deductive inference, the thought is directed from the general to the singular, in induction, the thought is
directed from the singular to the general, and in analogy, partial conclusions are drawn from partial thoughts.
KEYWORDS
The general, and in analogy, partial, partial thoughts.
INTRODUCTION
Analogy is a method of concluding, in which a
conclusion is made about other signs from the
similarity of several signs of two objects.
In the process of concluding analogy, events and
events are compared and their differences and
similarities are determined. In this process, rather than
insignificant differences, attention is paid to the
similarities of important signs. When concluding
analogy, conclusions of a more probable nature are
drawn.
There are two types of inference by analogy.
1. Anology of characteristics (subjects).
2. Anology of relations.
When concluding the analogy of properties (subjects),
two single objects or two classes of objects in the same
category are compared based on their similar aspects.
The scheme of this conclusion can be expressed as
follows:
Research Article
SIGNIFICANCE OF ANALOGY
Submission Date:
February 13, 2024,
Accepted Date:
February 18, 2024,
Published Date:
February 23, 2024
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ajsshr/Volume04Issue02-14
Mamatkulov Rashid Pazilbekovich
Associate Professor, Tashkent State University Of Law, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ajsshr
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 04 Issue 02-2024
88
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
02
P
AGES
:
87-91
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
993
)
(2022:
6.
015
)
(2023:
7.
164
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
X subject, a b c has d characters.
Y subject too a b c has characters.
So, the Y subject too must have the symbol d.
For example, the Earth and the Sun are similar in some
important features:
-
they are heavenly bodies that are part of the same
planets;
-
both are constantly in motion;
-
chemical elements with a similar chemical
structure on Earth were also found in the Sun using
spectral analysis.
Based on this similarity, scientists came to the
conclusion that the new element (helium) found in the
Sun must also be present on Earth.
In relational analogy, conclusions are made based on
the signs of objects. For example, there are the
following relations between two pairs of persons x and
u, s and d.
1) x is the father, ( in relation to R 1 ) he is a minor son
father is considered
2) s - grandmother (R 2 in relation) d - the only closest
of the minor grandchild is a relative.
3) the relationship between the father and the child,
according to the established rules (R 1 ), the father is
obliged to take care of his child and engage in his
education and upbringing. Taking into account the
similar relationship between R 1 and R 2, it can be
concluded that R2's grandmother is also a minor and
has the authority to keep his grandson in his care and
engage in education. The following formula can be
used to conclude relative analogy.
Basics
1) to x R 1 y R 1 characteristic features PQST
2) m R 2 n R 2 characteristic symbols PQS
Conclusion: probably, R 2 has T character.
The level of concluding analogy, it is divided into the
strict, non-strict, and false analogy. When concluding a
strict analogy, we get a reliable and sufficient level of
conclusion. When concluding a non-strict analogy, we
get a probable conclusion.
When making a conclusion based on strict analogy, the
objects, events, and signs of events are similar to each
other. These signs determine the relationship between
them. The following scheme represents such a
situation:
Event A has symbols a, v, s, d, e.
has symbols a, v, s, d.
S is derived from the sum of characters a, v, s, d.
So, event V has sign e.
Volume 04 Issue 02-2024
89
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
02
P
AGES
:
87-91
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
993
)
(2022:
6.
015
)
(2023:
7.
164
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Arguments by analogy are not strict and false. It does
not have such a clear structure. Therefore, the
conclusions are probable or false. Argument by
analogy is closely related to the types of deductive and
inductive inference. Therefore, the inference by
analogy is only inductive inference or only deductive.
inference is not in the form of inference.
Modeling has its place and importance in science. In
this process, a model (likeness, example) of the studied
object is developed. The model is a system of elements,
in which certain aspects, relations, and functions of the
object (or copy) applied in this system are recreated.
The analogy is always with modeling. dependent. The
pattern is created concerning the object that is being
applied persistently. Modeling is done based on the
similarity between the object to which a certain
analogy is applied and its model. Moreover, there is
always a difference between the model and the
original, rather than exactness. A conclusion is drawn
from the similarity between the model and the original.
In this sense, modeling is close to analogy. The main
task of modeling is the original and the model The
model is divided into two: mental and material. The
mental model is divided into figurative, symbolic, and
mixed types. The model analogy is a form of this
symbolic model. For example, with Rutherford's
rotation of the electron around the nucleus, the
planets revolve around the sun and their axis. It is also
a relational model. Here we see that creating a model
based on a certain analogy is the basis for discovering
new theories. Creating a model based on similar
aspects of subjects serves as a basis for creating a new
theory. Such analogical models are used to analyze
certain theories through experience. is important.
Concluding by analogy in most cases has a probable
character. This probability manifests itself in different
degrees. In some cases, the probability is close to the
truth. In some cases, it can be a completely wrong
conclusion.
The following conditions must be fulfilled to make a
conclusion based on analogy.
1. The more common the signs of the compared
criminal events and events, the more accurate the
analogical conclusion will be. The possibility of making
the correct conclusion will also increase.
2. If the signs of the compared criminal events and
events consist of important signs for these events and
events, the probability of a convincing conclusion
increases and the conclusion is close to the truth.
3. The deeper the internal nature of the necessary
relationships between the events of the compared
criminal event, the higher the accuracy of the reliable
conclusion. The characteristics of the compared
criminal event and the events must be the same. When
we compare it with the composition of another crime,
the more we know their necessary connection
Volume 04 Issue 02-2024
90
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
02
P
AGES
:
87-91
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
993
)
(2022:
6.
015
)
(2023:
7.
164
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
relations. If that crime reflects the essence of those
events and events, and if there are no random signs in
its composition, we can find out what criminal signs
they have from their similarity.
4. If the sign of the compared criminal events and
events is a specific sign of those events and events,
then the level of correctness of the conclusion will be
higher. If these signs also apply to other events and
events and they do not have a special sign, then the
probability of the correctness of the conclusion will be
low.
In the process of knowledge, the important aspects of
things and events are compared, and approximated,
i.e., probable conclusions are drawn. These probable
conclusions encourage an experimental experiment on
that object, which, in turn, can serve as a basis for the
discovery of important discoveries.
Concluding by analogy also has its place and
importance in the system of legal sciences.
Representatives of the legal field apply to draw a
conclusion by analogy in the following cases. In
particular:
1. When giving a legal assessment of events and
incidents.
2. In the process of criminal investigation.
3. In the process of conducting a criminal examination.
The rules of syllogism are applied when giving a legal
assessment of a certain event and phenomenon. In this
process, a certain legal norm serves as a major basis,
and knowledge of concrete evidence serves as a minor
basis. In this way, it is possible to conclude analogy in
separate legal systems. Judges in the considered cases,
legal relations may be encountered that are not
provided for by the law. In this case, there is a need to
draw a conclusion on analogy based on legal norms.
The logical structure of concluding by analogy in the
case under consideration regarding a specific criminal
act in the court process is represented by the following
scheme:
Basics:
1) d 1 act provided by the law, symbols P, Q, M and S
have legal consequences.
2) d 2 is an action not provided for by the law, has
symbols P, Q, N.
CONCLUSION
In case of origin of the legal consequence, d 2 can be
applied concerning d 1 . An analogy in inquiry. When
analyzing the materials collected in connection with a
specific criminal case, the judge and investigator work
based not only on the knowledge and experience
gained in science but also based on their skills and the
experience of others. having information, he can
Volume 04 Issue 02-2024
91
American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research
(ISSN
–
2771-2141)
VOLUME
04
ISSUE
02
P
AGES
:
87-91
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
993
)
(2022:
6.
015
)
(2023:
7.
164
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
determine the signs and causes of the crime that were
not known before with the determined grounds.
When solving a crime, making a conclusion based on
analogy is important in determining how the crime was
committed.
For example, citizen M. The investigator investigating
the theft in his apartment found out that the theft was
committed by a group of criminals when the owner left
the room to go to the store. Later, during the
investigation, it was found that the previous two thefts
were committed in the same manner in an analogous
situation. Therefore, based on analogy, it can be
concluded that this criminal theft was committed by
the members of the same criminal group.
Drawing a conclusion based on analogy is also widely
used in criminalistic examination. In particular:
1. Identification of the person.
-
based on external signs
-
based on fingerprints
-
based on feet, hands teeth, and other signs
-
making an analogical conclusion based on text and
signature.
2. Identifying the means used in the criminal process.
- the firearm used in the course of the crime identifies
the weapon based on bullets and casings.
-
based on the identification of traces of the
vehicle used in the crime.
-
making an analogical conclusion based on the
weapons used in the course of the crime of theft.
In these cases, the criminologist makes an expert
opinion in the process, knowledge about single objects
passes to knowledge about similar objects. For
example, a conclusion is made that fingerprints found
at the crime scene belong to a specific person as a
moving sign.
The degree of reasonableness of the expert
criminologist's conclusion is related to the correct
assessment of the similarities and differences of the
compared object.
REFERENCES
1.
Войшвилло Е. К. Понятие как форма мышления.
-
М., 1989.
2.
Гетманова А.Д. Логика.
-
М., 1995.
3.
Ивлев Ю. В. Логика. Учебник для вузов.
-
М.:
Логос, 1998.
4.
Кириллов В. И., Старченко А. А. Логика.
-
М.:
“Логос”, 1997.
5.
Ра
ҳ
имов
И
.
Логикадан
амалий
машгулотлар
ва
методик
тавсиялар
. -
Т
.:
“Ў
қ
итувчи”
, 1988.
