Understanding Legal Demonstration and Sophistry
Item 13: The Demonstration
Demonstration in Legal Arguments
A demonstration is an argument that, through true and necessary premises, reaches a true and necessary conclusion. Unlike a syllogism, demonstration is not merely deductive; its premises must be true, certain, and irrefutable. In essence, a demonstration is a syllogism built upon true and necessary premises. The major premise represents the norm, the minor premise represents the case, and the conclusion provides the rationale.
The syllogism, when applied to the legal world, serves a similar purpose. In legal practice, demonstrating and testing arguments are crucial for establishing truth, as opposed to mere probability. Every legal process involves judicial demonstration and testing, with the former being deductive and the latter inductive.
Example: Article 61 of the Venezuelan Penal Code
Article 61 of the Penal Code of Venezuela states that any action punishable by law shall be deemed voluntary unless otherwise recorded. Thus, if the defendant’s action attends tests, and there is no evidence that their action was involuntary, then the defendant must receive the considered penalty.
Elements of a Demonstration
- Thesis: The proposition that states the truth to be demonstrated in a case. It is often accompanied by an explanation that clarifies the defense. It is the proposition to be proved.
- Background: The proposition or set of propositions from which a clear thesis is derived, leading to a real demonstration that proves the thesis.
- Reason: The result of demonstrative reasoning. It is the method of demonstration, where evidence and logic connect the antecedent and consequent, leading to the conclusion inferred from the foundation.
Item 14: Sophistry (or Fallacies)
Sophistry and Fallacies in Legal Arguments
Sophistries, or fallacies, are apparent truths that are, in reality, lies. They occur when the use of words is manipulated to alter their meaning, intending to influence a particular decision. These apparent truths can be deceptive if one does not carefully read and understand the language. The legal field is particularly susceptible to this, as the manipulation of language can lead to misinterpretations and flawed arguments.
Classification of Sophistry and Fallacies
- Formal Fallacy: These occur unintentionally due to a lack of understanding of the rules of syllogism. This includes poorly structured premises that violate these rules, such as using two negative premises, which prevent a valid conclusion. The term “formal” is used because the error stems from gaps in knowledge of syllogistic rules.
- Existential Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of a categorical syllogism is a particular proposition, but its premises are not both universal. Example:
All animals are pampered pets.
No unicorn is a pet.
Then: Some unicorns are not pets.
- Fallacy of Four Terms (Quaternio Terminorum): A valid categorical syllogism must have only three terms. If there are more than three terms, the syllogism is invalid. This often involves using the middle term with different meanings in each premise. For example:
Don Quixote was written by Cervantes.
Don Quixote is the name of a restaurant.
Then: Cervantes wrote the name of a restaurant.
- Fallacy of Illicit Major: This occurs when the conclusion of a syllogism goes beyond what is stated in the premises. Specifically, when the major term of a syllogism is not distributed in the major premise but is distributed in the conclusion. For example:
All dogs are mammals.
No man is a dog.
Then: No man is a mammal.
- Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: This occurs when both premises are negative. For example:
The chiguires are not aquatic animals.
Octopuses are not chiguires.
Then: Octopuses are not aquatic animals.