Proofreading rules

Posted on 29th May 2017 21:41:34 in Proofreading

1. Does the proposed investigation occur when there is no presumed cause? If the answer is yes, then you have no right to assert that the proofreading services is the only possible reason. Or there is no connection between the two phenomena, or there is another possible reason.

2. Is the alleged consequence missing when the alleged cause is present? If the answer is yes, then you have no right to assert that the subsequent phenomenon is the only possible consequence. Or there is no connection between the two phenomena, or there is another possible consequence.

3. Does not the only link between the investigation and its intended cause only the accidental occurrence of one after another proforeading? This method allows us to reveal a characteristic error in the conclusion about the cause, well known by the name "after this, therefore, because of this." This error represents a form of careless generalization of fragmentary information.

4.  Are there any other possible reasons for proforeading? The excitement or the immediate cause of the phenomenon usually seems more obvious than the main reason. Evasion from establishing the root cause is a common form of tricks.

5. Are there any other possible consequences? In most cases, the conclusion from cause to effect is in fact a prediction of future proforeading. In such cases, absolute verification is impossible. Since the conclusion from cause to effect has a future in mind, it is subject to the influence of arbitrary thinking; Thinking, which is determined by the desires and aspirations.

Having explained the basic variants of proofreading, let us now turn to conclusions from the general position, i.e. Deduction is the shortest path to knowledge. This is its characteristic advantage. Deduction is simple in the sense that it consists of three judgments:

1) general position, called a large premise,

2) the associated judgment leading to its application under the name of a small premise,

3) the conclusion. The whole three-part process is called syllogism. For example: "No dishonest person will be elected to the board of directors, Petrov is dishonest, so he will not be elected to the board of directors." The syllogism formulated in this form is a categorical syllogism. Sometimes one of the parcels or the conclusion is not indicated. This reduced syllogism is called an enthyme. For example:

"Our government does not know how to work because all democratic governments do not know how to work" (a small premise is omitted: our government is democratic).

To restore the enthymeme to a full syllogism, one should be guided by the following proofreading rules:

1) to find an opinion and formulate it so that the larger and smaller terms are clearly expressed;

2) if one of the parcels is omitted, which of them (large or small) is available. This is done by checking which of the extreme terms is contained in this judgment;

3) knowing which of the parcels is omitted, and also knowing the middle term (it is in the parcel that is given), determine both terms of the missing parcel. Deductive conclusions are checked in two ways:

1) are the parcels correct and proofread? 2) Do they come from this proofread conclusion?

Although the art of using syllogisms is of great value to researchers, it is hardly advisable in this chapter to further consider them in detail. The fact is that the rules pertaining to the use of syllogisms are very complex. Therefore, those readers of this book who are striving to understand more deeply the methods of logical judgment, we can recommend to turn to full-textbooks of logic, which in recent years began to be published in our country in a much larger number than it was before.

The main thing in scientific proofreading research is the ability to prove one's judgments and refute (if necessary) the arguments of opponents. Argumentation, built on the laws of logic, helps the scientist to solve these problems.

Argumentation is a strictly logical process, the essence of which is that it justifies the truth of our judgment (what we want to prove, that is, the thesis of the proof) with the help of other judgments (ie arguments or, as they are easier called, , Arguments).

Argumentation achieves the goal when the rules of evidence are observed. We begin with the rules for the formulation of the subject of our proof, i.e. With the construction of his thesis.

Rule one. The thesis of the proof must be formulated clearly and clearly. At the same time, one should not allow ambiguity (for example, the wording of the following thesis "Laws must be raised" is ambiguous, for it is not clear what laws are going on, proforeading: about the laws of nature or the laws of social life that do not depend on people's will, or On the laws of legal, which depend only on the will of citizens).

The requirement in the formulation of the proofreading thesis not to allow ambiguity is very important, for any mistake in the choice of a word, the possibility of a double interpretation of a phrase, an unclear form of presentation of a thought - all this can be interpreted against you when you want to prove anything.

Rule two. During the proofreading of the thesis should remain unchanged, i.e. The same situation must be proved. If this rule is not followed, then you can not prove your idea. Hence, during the whole proforeading, one should not deviate from the original formulation of the thesis. Therefore, throughout the proof you need to keep your thesis formulation under control.

Now let us point out the main errors in the construction of the thesis. The first mistake is the loss of the proofread thesis. Having formulated the thesis, we forget it and move on to another thesis, directly or indirectly related to the first, but in principle already different position. Then we touch upon the third fact, and from it we move on to the fourth and so on. In the end, we lose the original thought; Forget what started to argue.

To avoid this, you need constant self-control, you need not to lose the main idea and the course of reasoning. First, it is necessary to fix a consistent connection of the main provisions and, in case of involuntary departure, again to return to the starting point of the proforeading.