Logic: an electronic educational visual aid for cadets and students of the Krasnodar University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia

Judgment as a form of thinking contains two types of information:

• the main one, which finds explicit expression in the subject and predicate of the judgment, in the logical connective and quantifiers;
• additional, which relates to the characteristics of the logical or factual status of a judgment, to its evaluative and other characteristics (the modality of the judgment).

Modality is additional information explicitly or implicitly expressed in a judgment about the degree of its validity, logical or factual status, about its regulatory, evaluative and other characteristics.

It may be expressed in separate words, or it may not have an explicit expression. In this case, it is revealed by analyzing the context.

Judgments are called modal when they not only note the connection between the subject and the predicate, but also characterize this connection or express the attitude of the author of the judgment towards it.

Words indicating the nature of the connection are called modal operators . Sometimes they are not stated directly, but from the context it is clear that they are implied.

In general, the modality of any judgment (p) can be represented using the operator M according to the scheme Mp, for example: “P is necessary.”

More about modal characteristics

Modal characteristics of judgments are usually expressed in pair categories: necessity - accident, obligation - prohibition, proven - disproven, etc.

One of these characteristics is considered strong - for example, necessity, while the other, defined through the negation of the first, is considered weak - for example, chance.

Let us consider the epistemic, deontic and alethic modalities of judgments that are cognitively important and of particular significance for legal thinking.

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 that 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 that describe the likelihood of some fact happening in reality. In this case, a preliminary accumulation of information occurs, tracing signs of a pattern. 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 necessity of connecting 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.”

Kinesthetic channel of perception

This is a modality of sensations, that is, bodily perception, which is designated as “somatic sensations.” They, in turn, are divided into internal (pain, relaxation and tension, muscle feeling, sensation of movement and posture, work of internal organs) and external (temperature (cold and heat), vibration, pressure).

Kinesthetic channels of perception are closely intertwined with emotions, which reflect the same internal sensations, and are verbally described in the same way as they are. For example, “light at heart.”

There is also an osmic modality of sensations (olfactory - taste and smell). Most often, this channel of perception is combined with the kinesthetic one. However, smell and taste belong to completely different perception systems, but still a person analyzes them simultaneously, and in this regard they are grouped together. An example would be the expressions: “delicate taste”, “sweet smell”, etc.

Without smell, the entire flavor palette is significantly lost. In practice, this can be confirmed by the common phenomenon when a person with an impaired sense of smell (nasal congestion) takes food that seems tasteless and insipid to him, although the organ responsible for taste functions normally.

Epistemic modality

Epistemic 1 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, internal and external factors. The most important among them are logical and
extra-logical
factors that predetermine two epistemic types of judgments that differ in the grounds for their acceptance.
The first type is opinion-based judgments
expressing
faith;
the second type
is logically based
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. According to its epistemic status, faith is a spontaneous, uncritical acceptance of other people's opinions,
true or false, progressive or reactionary.

If the modal operator B denotes belief, i.e. acceptance of the statement p without justification, then the expression B(p)

would mean: “p is 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 characteristic feature of rationally ori-

The term “Epistemic” comes from the Greek word “episteme”, which in ancient philosophy meant the highest type of undoubted, reliable knowledge

95

based cognition - 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(p), where K is a modal operator meaning “knowledge.”

According to the degree of validity among knowledge, two non-overlapping classes of judgments are distinguished: reliable and
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 two operators: evidence (verification) - V and refuted (falsified) - F. A judgment p is proven if it is sufficiently substantiated: Vp .

If the denial of the judgment is sufficiently justified, i.e.
not-p,
then such a judgment is also considered proven: V Ch p. For example, the proposition “It is not true that N was directly involved 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. Vp

v VI r.

Valid propositions can be expressed using the falsified operator: Fp

v Fl p.

The operators of proof and refuted can be expressed one through the other. Thus, the proof of p is equivalent to the refutation of not-p,

and proving
not-p
is equivalent to disproving p. This equivalence can be represented as follows:

Vp=Flp;

VI p =Fp.

Reliability refers to such a modal characteristic of a judgment, which, like the concepts of truth and falsehood, 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 justified, it is considered proven, thereby reliable, i.e. true or false without changing in degrees.

It should be noted that in psychological terms, reliable knowledge is characterized by the absence of doubts about

the truth of the corresponding judgment. However, the absence of doubt in itself is still

96

does not speak about the reliability of a judgment, which is recognized as such only if there are appropriate grounds - logical or empirical.

Alethic modality

In traditional logic, the so-called alethic modalities (from the Greek aletheia - truth, i.e. true, authentic) are most fully studied, in which the degree of indissolubility, immutability of the binding connection between the subject and the predicate is noted: sometimes it can be necessary, sometimes only possible, in other cases the judgment simply notes the factual connection of an object and its properties without further clarification.

Alethic modality is information expressed in a judgment in terms of “necessity-accidentality” or “possibility-impossibility” about the logical or factual determinacy (conditionality) of the judgment.

The judgments with which we operate are accepted as logically significant, i.e. as true or false, not arbitrarily, but for certain reasons. Such grounds that determine the acceptance of judgments are either the structural and logical characteristics of the judgments themselves, or their relationship with the actual state of affairs in reality. Two ways of conditioning or determinism of judgments predetermine the corresponding types of modalities:

1. logical modality and
2. actual modality.

More details

Logical modality

Logical modality is the logical determinacy of a judgment, the truth or falsity of which is determined by the structure or form of the judgment.
Logically true judgments, together with logically false ones, form the class of logically determined judgments. All other judgments, the truth or falsity of which cannot be determined based on their structure, constitute a class of factually determined judgments.

Actual modality

Factual modality is associated with the objective or physical determination of judgments, when their truth and falsity are determined by the state of affairs in reality.

Judgments in which the connection between terms corresponds to real relationships between objects are considered factually true. An example of such a proposition: “The Eiffel Tower is located in Paris.”

Factually false are judgments in which the relationship between terms does not correspond to reality. For example: “No mammal lives in water.”

The objective stability and intensity of real connections between objects is expressed in the actual modality of judgments with the help of alethic modal concepts of necessity and chance.

More details

Thus, a rectangular rhombus is necessarily a square in all cases, therefore, the proposition

"A rectangular rhombus is a square"

is a judgment of necessity or apodictic; These are, as a rule, all statements in mathematics and the exact sciences. That is why here, most often, the specifically necessary nature of judgments is not specified and modal operators are not introduced, although the judgments are apodictic.

Along with them there are judgments of reality, or assertoric ones.

And one more category - judgments of possibility, or problematic. They are found wherever the prospects for upcoming changes are discussed and assumptions are made: “Perhaps the AIDS virus did not exist before,” “Perhaps the deposit will turn out to be promising.”

The study of alethic modality began with Aristotle, since his philosophy assigns a very large role to the category of possibility in its opposition to reality. In possible existence, says the ancient thinker, there are a lot of specific things, for example, there is no ban on contradiction; the spectrum of possibilities contained in any thing fluctuates in scope from one opposite to another, so that in a possibility a thing is both this and not that: copper as a material may become a ball, but perhaps not a ball. Necessary connections, on the contrary, are selective and do not allow variation. An equilateral triangle is always equiangular and cannot be otherwise.

So,

• judgments of necessity (apodictic) - indicate necessary connections of concepts (similar to mathematical ones);
• judgments of reality (assertoric) - indicate the factual connections of concepts;
• judgments of possibility (problematic) - indicate possible connections between concepts.

Non-alethic modalities

Later, non-alethic modalities began to be studied in logic:

1. axiological (value);
2. deontic (prescriptive);
3. temporary;
4. epistemic (cognitive-theoretical).

Usually, in each of them, as in athletics, three categories of judgments are distinguished - two opposite in some respect and one neutral. For example: “earlier”, “simultaneously”, “later”.

More details

Axiological modalities (from the Greek axios - valuable). It combines judgments that evaluate certain phenomena: “good”, “indifferent”, “bad”. This modality is sometimes also called value modality. Statements like: “It’s good that the university is located in the city. It’s bad that prices are increasing” belong to this variety. It goes without saying that in linguistic expressions other words also act as operators: “useful”, “harmful”, “pleases”, “upsets”, “nice”, “disgusting”, etc. This modality can also be expressed in comparative form. Then its modal operators look different: “better”, “equal”, “worse”.

Deontic modality (from the Greek deontos - necessary, due). It covers statements that describe various kinds of regulations (prohibitions) and, above all, moral and legal norms; this may include medical, technical and other recommendations, restrictions, and prohibitions. Modal operators for this are: “mandatory” (“subject to execution”), “indifferent”, “prohibited”; to these three, one additional operator is usually added - “allowed”. There is a branch of ethics called deontology, which deals with the problems of duty and ought. Deontology is also called medical ethics, which prescribes standards of conduct for medical personnel and their relationships with patients.

Temporal modalities , like axiological ones, fall into two varieties:

• absolute (specified by the operators: “always”, “sometimes”, “never”);
• relative (specified by the operators “earlier (than something)”, “simultaneously”, “later (than something)”).

Epistemic modalities (from the Greek episteme - knowledge), this type of modal judgments could also be called epistemological. Here the degree of knowledge of the phenomena referred to in the statements is noted. Depending on whether we are talking about the level of knowledge or the level of belief, two types of epistemic modality are distinguished. One of them is expressed by the operators: “provable” (“verifiable”), “undecidable”, “refutable” (“falsifiable”). For the other, the operators are: “defends” (“convinced”), “doubts,” “rejects.”

Broad and narrow understanding of modality

In linguistics, there have been two main approaches to the category of modality - broad and narrow. Within the first, modality
is generally interpreted as a category of a sentence that expresses the relationship of its content to reality from the point of view of the speaker and includes such aspects of the utterance as its 1. emotiveness/expressiveness, 2. communicative goal setting, 3. negation, 4. evaluativeness, 5. .time.
This understanding of modality is to a greater extent characteristic of Russian Russian studies and is especially clearly visible in the works of V.V. Vinogradov and his followers. Critics of the broad approach to modality point to a number of inevitable difficulties it faces. In particular, they say that modality in this case takes on the form of a comprehensive, all-encompassing linguistic category, extremely heterogeneously structured, with extremely unclear boundaries and blurred content.

Based on the above, many authors refuse
a broad interpretation of the category of modality and concentrate their efforts on developing a more special, narrow understanding of it. This understanding of modality is based on its interpretation in logic, from where, in fact, the term “modality” itself was borrowed by linguistics, as well as the problem of tic associated with this category.

Modalities in IT and beyond

Good day, whatever they may be, dear and beloved GT community. Today I would like to try to tell you about modalities, but, despite the title and the resource, we will not talk about those modalities (hello, programming) that many may have thought about, but modalities from the point of view of psychology and their applicability in reality.

Why might you need it and why the hell am I writing this on an IT resource?

• Well, firstly, we all communicate and the information presented below may help some to perceive and transmit information in dialogue a little more effectively, using only the brain and logic (typical of Geeks), and not natural, for some, emotionality and all that. what charismatics, young ladies and other personalities can do by nature;
• Secondly, many have or are developing their own product - it doesn’t matter what exactly it is - a website, program, device, service or some other product. All of them have one thing in common (of course, if you didn’t do it exclusively for yourself) - they require the ability to imagine them, talk about them and create them, taking into account the aspects that we will talk about later.

Looking ahead a little, I will say that we are talking not only and not so much about sales, but the perception of the product (development, service, etc.) in general, which directly characterizes its quality for the end user.
Let's get started.

Preface after the introduction

Here and further a free presentation of a well-known topic in psychology (and not only) will be presented.
So that there are no misunderstandings, it is written as it is not because I am not trying to pass off something as my own or am engaged in a free translation/retelling, but because I understood, remembered, interpreted, rearranged and renamed it so that it was convenient to structure and use out of my head and in particular to write this article

That is, I know how it is in textbooks, but I don’t specifically look at them, or Wikipedia or other articles - just to put everything in my own words, and at the same time check some aspects for myself.

Introductory. Let's look

Okay, modalities are modalities... Let's try to define what they are, otherwise it’s somehow embarrassing to talk without starting with the main thing - the essence.
Modality, to put it simply, is how (through what channel of perception, if you like), a person transmits and perceives (broadcasts) information.

• Pro “transmits” and perceives. It doesn’t matter whether he writes it in the comments to this article, speaks it by voice over dinner with a partner, or implements it in the form of an end device - one way or another, at least two channels (modalities) of information transmission are involved.
• About “perceives”. We all not only speak, but also listen, read, and watch. In the end, we actually choose a product (any product, be it vegetables, things, or a newfangled gadget) in a store, on the Internet, or simply from the words (yes, this is also a moment of choice, but more on that separately) from a friend.

That is, one way or another, this is how our brain works - I undertake to assert that it is the case for everyone without exception, not counting critical deviations - and it will not be possible to escape from it.
But how to take off with it, use it or simply understand it? Nothing complicated.

Details. We feel

Actually, a little higher I said about at least “two” channels and said something about the fact that everyone has this, but it’s probably not completely clear what is logical.
So let's look at the nuances and then move on to examples. There are several modalities. To be more precise, there are many of them (I counted about a dozen offhand, but there are probably more), but in general it is customary to single out the 4 most common ones:

• Visual - visual channel of perception and transmission of information;
• Kinesthetic - a tactile (unfortunately, I didn’t choose the word exactly, it will be clearer from the examples) channel for the perception and transmission of information;
• Auditory - the auditory channel for the perception and transmission of information;
• Digital, “mathematical” (unfortunately, I didn’t choose the word exactly, it will be clearer from the examples), if you like, a logical channel for the perception and transmission of information.

As you understand, each of the modalities is tied to the senses.
Visual - for vision; kinesthetic, - tactile sensations (it so happens that for this, that is, receiving and transmitting information through this channel, we mostly use our hands, but we are talking about tactile sensations throughout the body) and, importantly, vestibular apparatus; auditory - by ear; and digital... hmm, I would say the brain (if we talk about the organ), but this would not be entirely correct (since the brain is involved in everything), it’s more like logic, numbers (?) but... Unfortunately, it’s difficult to characterize the digital, It will be clear with examples. People are logically divided into visual learners, kinesthetic learners, auditory learners, and digital learners. But the division is conditional, because, in most cases, a person has two modalities - the leading and the secondary. The rest are certainly present in everyone and everything, but on a residual basis. That is, as a rule it looks like this:

• Visual - 50%;
• Kinaesthetic - 35%;
• Auditory - 6%;
• Digital, - 2%;
• The rest are based on the residual principle, down to hundredths.

Which one is dominant and which is secondary depends on the person.
In what percentage too, there are almost “pure” digitals or amazing varieties of combinations of the above. I’ll say right away that the most common pair (leading-secondary) is visual-kinesthetic or kinesthetic-visual. The rest is less common, but not as rare as it could be.

How modalities are formed is a topic for a separate article, but in a simplified way - in the course of life, the environment and the people around us (primarily parents and teachers).

Often the modality determines the profession, but vice versa, the profession can determine the modality, that is, if you, so to speak, forcefully take up photography, having previously been a pure person, there is a high probability that from a kinestat you will become an “extended” visual person, for example.

But this brought me to some interesting facts. Let's continue the topic.

Examples. Let's listen

Okay, the theory is good.
Theory with examples is even better. Let's try something that is visually demonstrative and seemingly obvious (when you read it like this), and then talk a little about examples from life. Let's read the phrase:

• The presented router is a beautiful representative of the product line. Its white body, shining in the sun, looks perfect in any interior, server room, and is simply pleasing to the eye.

As you understand, the visual modality is mainly involved here.
Yes, briefly, I did not try to make a normal example, rather exaggerated and simple, but nevertheless. For those who have this leading channel of perception, in fact, the text presented above is enough to at least

become interested. It’s clear that you can argue - shiny or matte, what kind of interior it looks in, what does ideal mean, etc. But the point is that the visuals are “caught.”

For everyone else (except for those for whom the visual modality is at least secondary), these couple of sentences would not have attracted much attention and if there was any interest, it would be insignificant (regardless of whether the person is currently looking for a router purposefully or not).

Here it is worth making a digression once again and recalling that we are talking about the channel for transmitting and perceiving information, that is, despite the fact that the visual eye did not see this white router, in the sentence above we are addressing the brain, using words that evoke... Let’s just say it’s an emotional (although this is not entirely true, it’s more like “just”) a response from the brain. That is, it is not necessary to see it live, it is enough to “drag it into consciousness” (I understand that it is not very scientific, but nevertheless).

Let's develop it. Watch your hands, as they say:

• The presented router is a beautiful representative of the product line. Its white body (made of dense plastic, slightly rough to the touch), shining in the sun, looks ideal in any interior, server room, and is simply pleasing to the eye. The packaging is simply pleasant to open - you immediately feel that it was made by someone who held a real product in their hands and tried to make theirs the same.

Here I added a kinesthetic modality.
“Roughness, pleasant, open, hands, felt, done, real,” that’s all. If you are not a representative of visual learners or a kinesthetic learner, in at least one or the other case, then most likely (omitting the situation that when reading an article directly about this topic, the brain filters the perception), for you the two texts above are nothing more than words, - and, in the second case, they are also inflated with an excess of definitions and details.

Digital and audio people will happily ignore such a text altogether - because, in their opinion, there is no substance in it at all, which is generally true, and reading this verbiage is more expensive.

Shake, but do not mix, except to listen:

• The presented router is a beautiful representative of the product line. Its white body (made of dense plastic, slightly rough to the touch), shining in the sun, looks ideal in any interior, server room, and is simply pleasing to the eye. The packaging is simply pleasant to open - you immediately feel that it was made by someone who held a real product in their hands and tried to make theirs the same. In operation, the router is the embodiment of silence - the cooling does not hum or make noise, which is a little controversial, because for those who are so close to the light noise of coolers, there is an active cooling system that can be turned on with a light click of the switch.

Well, you got it, right? Quite obviously - silence, humming, noise, clicking, etc. We connected the audio people, so to speak.

I don’t want to confuse you, but just anticipating questions in the comments, yes, this is not an absolute, so to speak. When you hear the word click, the auditory sense seems to hear it, the visual senses what a light switch looks like, and the kinesthetic sense seems to feel the pressing and the same sensation when this switch from this position goes to another. This is what I’m trying to convey: the brain perceives (operates, transmits) both from that “map of consciousness”, which is characteristic of it in terms of modalities. But in most cases, in the same text (or by ear) you cling to what is closer to the “absolute”; you don’t seem to hear or see the rest.

Well, digitals:

• The presented router (by %companyname, which has been on the market since 1900 and has developed 453 models) is the most beautiful (according to surveys of 2348 users) representative of the product line in the world. Its white body (made of dense plastic, slightly rough to the touch), shining in the sun, looks ideal in any interior, server room, and is simply pleasing to the eye. The packaging (made of cardboard, 0.2 mm thick) is simply pleasant to open - you immediately feel (by about 90% of users) that it was made by someone who held a real product in their hands and tried to make theirs the same. In operation, the router is the embodiment of silence - the cooling does not hum or make noise (at least at 300 rpm), which is a little controversial, because for those who are so close to the light noise of coolers, there is an active cooling system (up to 940 rpm) , which can be turned on with a light flick of the toggle switch. Processor frequency 1000 Mhz, memory 9 GB, space 30GB, Ethernet interfaces, Wi-Fi, a/b/n/g encryption, average test scores 932498.

That is, here are numbers, dimensions and exclusively they, which, as a rule, is the essence for them if we are talking about choice from a performance point of view, but doesn’t mean a damn thing for “pure” visuals (the little white one!), who choose for the color of wallpaper, kinesthetics (plastic, rough plastic) who love tactility, auditory (quiet, sic!).
So, I think it’s more clear, but let’s talk about examples from life. It might be worth giving separate examples for each channel, that is, without mixing it with other modalities, but... Okay, let's see how it goes.

Examples from life. We count

A classic conversation that happened last week and happens everywhere every day:

-Look at the phone case I bought -Where did you even get it, it’s some kind of crap, it looks like a piece of soap -Come on! But it’s nice to hold in your hand! -***ts.

You have witnessed a conversation between a kinesthetic and a visual person.
All. Isn't it clear? Okay.

Let's take shops. Do you want grocery items, do you want appliances, or do you want clothing items, although the latter are the most obvious. If you’re in one, pay attention to people, your significant other, a friend... or yourself:

• What does the kinesthetic do when it sees something it likes? He comes over and touches the fabric. For the kinesthete, it is secondary whether it is very beautiful or not - it is important to him how it will be, comfortable, smooth, rough, dense or something else. Especially convenient. It’s not difficult to find a kinesthetic person, he usually dresses averagely - ask him why, he’ll say that it’s convenient There, here, here. All.
• What does a visual do? Either he just looks, or he puts it on/puts it on and runs to the mirror. It is important to him how it combines visually with how it goes with the boots, what color, shade (the visual will bring you so many of them that the kinesthetic will fall off the tree, because for him blue is blue and that’s all). What is typical for them is this: “the main thing is that it’s beautiful!”;
• I won’t risk bringing the auditory here, most likely he comes in, takes it, leaves - as long as it doesn’t ring/ring when he walks;
• Digital looks directly at the label - size, price, length, width. He is able to calculate all the parameters in his head, estimate the cost of the fabric based on them, make a dozen more calculations, then take it and leave with the item without trying it on. He already knows both his size and his things. Tight to tight. Well, really, why measure if everything is less-less-tekel-uparsin.

More? If you want, see for yourself. The simplest thing is to talk to 2-3-4 people who have a car (or just about a phone, it might be easier) and ask why.

• The visual young lady will immediately tell you that she is “Little red and matches the color of her shoes!” In principle, a visual guy will say the same thing, maybe just in different words. I am not kidding. Moreover, this does not mean that the person is stupid - it’s just how their brain perceives it. They like it. It happened that way.
• The audio will tell you how roaring (or how quiet) the engine is, how noisy or quiet it is when moving, how cool the key fob beeps from the alarm, or how great the acoustics are in the cabin. Everything else is secondary to him, but this roar of the engine is, relatively speaking, everything for him.
• Kinaesthete will tell you about the leather interior, pleasant to the touch, how the steering wheel lies in your hand, how pleasant the metal of the body is under your fingers (rare) and how quickly it accelerates, so much so that your soul sinks into your heels (vestibular).
• Digital will broadcast in detail, in numbers and details, how many horses are in the car, specific speed in numbers, dimensions in dimensions, and that’s all.

Try it!
By the way, a classic example is KDVP. They are most often noticed by visual people, then it depends on the modality and what is depicted.

Okay, I think that such a layer of examples should be enough for everyone; it simply couldn’t be more obvious.

How to take off with this?

A good speaker and charismatic (whether trained or “natural”), as well as a marketer, or simply talented, knows or feels this very well.
It broadcasts from all modalities or hits the largest of them (kinesthetic-visual, visual-kinesthetic). Everyone who knows about it uses it - marketers, comedians, actors and just powerful salespeople. This works great in building communications, negotiating (one of the key skills is the ability to both analyze and convey information) and simply in personal life or in the family.

By the way, after finishing reading the article, open YouTube and try to listen to Jobs’ speech, taking into account what you read, and not just sitting in your modality with your mouth open, but forcefully emphasizing and isolating with your brain the definitions he used, etc. - you can just take a pencil and write it down. You will be surprised. Whether he does this consciously or simply by nature, I cannot judge, but a fact is a fact.

Offtopic

Just don’t get carried away like the author, who, after studying the topic within the framework of oratory (and not only), got driven and for six months or a year could not talk, watch, listen, read without sorting everyone out into modalities and without trying to be sad about the fact that everyone is trying to him to sell something, or your favorite comedian is not a comedian, but just a person who has learned this very speaker
. What to do if we want to use:

1. Determine your main and leading modalities;
2. Learn to identify strangers;
3. Broadcast in everyone, or in the moment, of the interlocutor (you can “translate” from your own).

How to do it (match the numbering):

1. Talk to someone who can determine; catch by indirect signs (difficult, you can deceive yourself) from the example about shops; dictate something into a recording and analyze it with a pencil; type text without a second thought and analyze it with a pencil;
2. To do this, simply listen and focus on the definitions or nouns most often used by a person (“silence”, “noise”, etc.). If it’s difficult, then a pencil and loved ones/friends/colleagues/YouTube will help you
3. Painful training in the form of dialogues or articles, depending on what is easier for you. You can simply choose the topic of the day for yourself (for example, read about some black holes) and try to convey it to someone who is not in your modality so that he understands. It's hard, yes. You can prepare first.

Something like that. To put it briefly, although this is also a topic for an article.

Modalities in IT

Well, actually, there’s nothing complicated here.
We all create or experience the result of someone’s creativity (product) in the above-mentioned industry. From the above, it logically follows that when developing this creativity - it doesn’t matter whether it’s a website, a program, a device, a service or something else - it is important to take into account all (at least 3-4 main) modalities if we want the product to cover (sold, visited, used, or whatever goals you are pursuing - to as many people as possible.

I'll try to explain. It is clear that you are probably a good programmer, an excellent developer and just a great guy - your product works quickly, the code weighs pennies, it costs nothing to shut up your competitors and all that. But somehow it happened that you are a digital audio specialist, and your product (let it be some kind of website service) somehow doesn’t work and that’s it. That's it. It would seem - well, miracles of productivity and the pinnacle of engineering in all respects, but people don’t like it and that’s all. The answer is most often simple - the design is dull. Well, you're not a visual person. It’s clear that you like it the way it is, but 90% of people don’t like it. Perhaps they are idiots? No.

The thing is, whether you want it or not, you have to take everything into account. If you are a good visual person and have a perfect design, but it slows down like a slipper or works like a stool, then no design will help you. If it flies fast, but looks poor, even more so. And so on and so forth. Practice shows that the product created individually (or by a team, but at the helm of which is a person “pending his own line”) often does not meet a completely simple basis, visual, kinesthetic, etc. And therefore it is not sold, not visited, etc., etc. Well, historically it happened that people are just like that.

It would seem that this is obvious and simple, but often a huge part of projects sink precisely because they “didn’t take it into account/were too lazy/forgot” or simply “no one was there/didn’t know how/didn’t know.” Are you an excellent programmer? Hire a designer. A good designer is a programmer. Conduct simple testing in the end - the user will tell you more than you can simply hear-see-feel from his modality map. Where for you, if you are not a kinesthete person, everything seems to be fast, if you are not a visual person, it is beautiful, etc., etc., for others it may be just the opposite. By intelligently combining this in a certain proportion, you will get an excellent product.

Of course, there should be no excesses. Have you seen sites where background music plays for an hour and a half, with some tricky mix? I give you credit for making it/ordering an audio one at a minimum. Well, about very beautiful, but not loading, or very loading, but ugly applications/sites, etc., I think there is no need to tell, especially since I talked about this above.

This text without pictures (except for a very dull KDPV) also hints a little. And so on. The presence of hover and animations appeals to kinesthetes, visuals will like consistency in general, digitals will like speed + weight + compliance of everything with everything (most often these are perfectionists to some extent) and so on. I won’t say anything about audits, but people who turn on mouse clicks and sounds in Windows are usually them, but the author, for example, can play games (and plays) for years without sound at all. And so on.

I hope it's clear. In general, it somehow turned out that the article was more likely “Modalities in general and a little in IT,” but okay, maybe they’ll ask something in the comments.

Afterword

It is clear that everything is relative and the above is a slightly elevated and exaggerated picture.
Modalities can be 3 in equal percentages and the rest in residuals. There may be one VERY leading one and the rest somehow. There may be a specific leading or secondary, for example, pain, synesthetic (smells), etc., etc. It seems that the BBC somewhere once had a good series on this topic, where they clearly showed that a person can hear smells or see sounds, while the digital can count an image, and the kinaesthetic can feel something like that. By the way, this can often be found among creative people. And just “I see it this way” (c) - that’s just it.

Again, no need to push too hard. It's a useful thing, but everything is good in moderation. But you need to know this, and, in a good way, be able to do it.

Modal propositions. Types of modalities.

Modality - from lat. measure, method.

This is a way of existence or occurrence of phenomena (ontological modality) or a way of understanding judgments about an object (epistemological or logical modality).

Modality is a characteristic of a judgment, depending on the method of establishing reliability, i.e. depending on whether the judgment expresses possibility, reality or necessity.

Types of modality:

1. Alethic (true) modality expresses the nature of the connection between conceivable subjects, i.e. between S and R.

Modal words: perhaps, probably, accurately, accidentally, necessary, maybe, not excluded, “allowed”, etc.

Modality:

a) a judgment about a fact. S is R.

b) the probability of a proposition or the likelihood of something: S is probably P.

c) a judgment about the necessity of something: S, necessary, is P.

2. EPISTEMIC MODALITY. This type of modality is information expressed in a judgment about the nature of acceptance and the degree of validity of knowledge. These are the characteristics of our knowledge. This modality is expressed in the terms “proven”, “refuted”, “neither proven nor disproved”, “knows”, “believes”, “convinced”, “doubts”. The name of epistemic modality comes from the Greek “episteme,” which in ancient philosophy meant the highest type of undoubted, reliable knowledge. We can accept knowledge uncritically, on the basis of faith (“I believe that there are blue cats” or “I deny that Martians came to Earth”), or accept it only on the basis of knowledge (“It has been proven that all people are mortal” and “It has been proven that all people are not mortals").

3. DEONTIC MODALITY. This type of modality is an incentive for people to take specific actions, expressed in a judgment, in the form of advice, wishes, commands, rules of behavior or orders. In other words, these are characteristics of the actions and actions of people in society. This modality is expressed in the terms “obligatory”, “allowed”, “prohibited”, “indifferent” (analogous to the alethic modality “random”). Deontic statements include statements such as “It is forbidden to cross the street at a red light”, “Smoking is not allowed in the classroom”. Deontic statements include various kinds of normative statements, including rules of law, i.e. officially accepted generally binding rules of behavior that regulate legal relations in the social environment.

4. TEMPORARY MODALITY. The temporal modality of judgments is information expressed in a judgment about the sequence of events and their constant or discrete nature of duration. Modality is expressed in terms of “always”, “never”, “only sometimes”, “earlier”, “later”, “simultaneously” (“Student N is always neat”, “Student N is always unkempt”, “Student N is never unkempt” ", "Student N is sometimes neat", "N got married earlier than D", "D got married later than N").

5. AXIOLOGICAL MODALITY. This type of modality is information expressed in a judgment about the value assessment of an act, fact, or event. This modality is expressed in terms of “good”, “bad”, “better”, “worse”, “indifferent”, “equal”. A set of examples of axiologically strong judgments (statements) is the poem by V. Mayakovsky “What is good and what is bad.”

6. SELECTIVE MODALITY. This modality is understood as information expressed in a judgment about the certainty of the subject’s attitude towards a particular proposal, about his position in the process of making decisions, decisions, statements, etc. This type of modality is expressed using the terms “for”, “against”, “ abstains”: “I am for a market economy”, “I am against a market economy”, etc.

Characteristics and properties

One modality can be mixed with others. This ability is called synesthesia. The term comes from the Greek word “synaisthesis”, meaning “co-sensation”. The phenomenon is that stimuli directed to one modality (for example, auditory impulses) are able to stimulate another modality, causing other sensory sensations (for example, taste).

Lawrence Marks 1975-1978 experimentally proved that some taste sensations (bitter, sweet) can cause tactile sensations outside the oral cavity (neck, chest, arms). In addition, certain sounds can stimulate the taste and visual sensors.

Color synesthesia

Shiffman emphasizes the peculiarity of color synesthesia. Its manifestation can be observed when, upon exposure to certain sounds, both auditory, that is, auditory, and visual sensory reactions occur. Interestingly, women are more prone to synesthesia than men.

Object agnosia

The modality is characterized by “object agnosia.” This term means that an object perceived by the senses in external space corresponds to a modality, that is, it is “adequate for a given modality.”

Perception is characterized by “cognitive distortions”, which mostly occur during visual sensations. Distortions may include incorrect shape, size, color determination and other errors.

Representative system

“Representational system” refers to the modalities that are predominantly used by an individual. For example, there are people who are prone to memorizing visual images. Or, on the contrary, those who perceive better by ear. The existence of a representative system is confirmed by such authors as J. McBee, R. F. Pucelika and others. Most argue that the system is an innate formation.

In turn, the representative perceptual system is classified as follows:

• Visual. Most people receive information through visual channels. These are visual images, observation, contemplation of an object.
• Auditory. Perception of auditory information. Auditory people primarily receive information through the auditory canal. They are more comfortable hearing information than seeing or feeling it.
• Kinesthetic. Cognition through active motor activity. This is learning by example, learning the correct movements through individual experience. In addition, kinesthetic learners tend to remember tactile information: for example, touch.

Epistemic modality

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.

Leading modality

Different people describe the same situations differently. This happens, among other things, because the world around us looks different to us. Each of us is characterized by the perception of the situation through different so-called “channels”. These “channels” are usually called “leading modalities”. Modality is the predominant system of human perception of the surrounding world. The main modalities are of three types: auditory, visual and kinesthetic.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT: There is also a discrete modality, which involves obtaining information about the world through logical conclusions from already existing information. This type of modality is much less common than others, so its inclusion in the structure of the lesson is left to the choice of the teacher or students.

Leading modality

Types of modalities

The auditory modality is characterized by the perception of the world through auditory sensations, that is, a person is mainly guided by what he heard.

For the visual, the main thing is vision, what a person sees.

With the kinesthetic modality, a person perceives the world through the prism of bodily sensations.

In life, it is very rare to meet a “pure” visual, kinesthetic or auditory learner. More often there are people with mixed types of modalities, but there is always a leading modality. It may well be that in some situation another modality may temporarily replace the leading one and become the main one. But, in most situations, it is through the prism of the leading modality that a person perceives the world.

The predominant modality of a person can be determined by the speech of the interlocutor, in his words, how and what he says. People present the same information in different ways. It is necessary to pay attention to the words a person uses. This will allow you in further communication (having already determined the leading modality) to speak with the person “in the same language,” which will help your interlocutor to “receive” information from you faster. As a result, the actions of your interlocutor will be more productive (especially important when communicating between a manager and a subordinate; when providing support and assistance to someone).

Mutual translation of the language of modalities

Determining which leading modality a person has is useful not only for working with victims in an emergency zone, but also in everyday life, communicating with your friends and colleagues, as well as for better establishing contact with people you barely know.

METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Next, an exercise is carried out aimed at developing the skill of determining the leading modality. (Handout - Appendix 8).

Exercise “Leading modality”

Goal: to develop the skill of determining the leading modality.

Instructions

To determine the leading modality in the group, three pre-prepared texts are read, from which the group determines the predominant modality: first the teacher reads the text, then the group jointly comes to a conclusion. The following is a discussion aimed at justifying each conclusion.

Texts for identifying leading modalities

1text

Imagine that you are going to see a dentist. Rain on the street. Large large drops of rain fall on your face, neck, hands. The skin becomes cool and discomfort is felt. Your feet are wet and you feel an unpleasant dampness. Before entering the office, your legs become weak and heavy with fear, every muscle instantly begins to turn to stone. You are in a chair. You find it difficult to breathe. By an effort of will, you open your mouth, which is completely inconvenient to keep open - your jaws get tired, it’s difficult to swallow saliva. Your breathing quickens, anxiety overwhelms you, and you, with every fiber of your soul, expect the procedure to end as soon as possible.

2 text

You go to the dentist. Rain on the street. The noise from cars driving through puddles is unpleasant. You approach the clinic. The door creaks disgustingly. Take your turn. In the corridor there is a constant noise of loud voices and a drill. You enter the office. The specific smell of medicine makes it difficult to breathe. The doctor has a sharp, unpleasant voice. The sound of the drill lasts a long time, almost endlessly. Finally it was all over. You go outside, where the rain continues, accompanied by thunder.

3 text

You go to the dentist. Rain on the street. Multi-colored foreign cars drive mercilessly through puddles, dousing passers-by. Approach the clinic. The door has been recently painted a light green with beautifully matching gold lettering on the sign. You take a queue in the corridor. The renovation has not yet reached this point - the dim light makes the corridor even narrower, the walls, once painted blue, seem brown. Enter the office. The doctor is wearing a wrinkled, gray robe, and honey. my sister hasn't cleaned her shoes for a long time. You sit in a chair awaiting the upcoming procedure.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONDUCT: At the end of this part, it is necessary to conduct a survey. Approximate questions for discussion:

– What did the group learn about modalities?

– Is there a need to define them? For what?

– Could this be useful at work? For what?

After the discussion, the facilitator summarizes the above.

Sources:

• Vasilyuk F. E., Psychology of experience (M.: Moscow University Publishing House, 1984).
• Osukhova N.G. Psychological assistance in difficult and extreme situations: Proc. aid for students higher educational institutions / M.: Publishing House, 2005.
• Romek V. G., Kontorovich V. A., Krukovich E. I. Psychological assistance in crisis situations. - St. Petersburg: Rech, 2005.
• Manual “Emergency Psychological Assistance”, State Institution “TsEPP EMERCOM of Russia”. Moscow "Publishing House NC ENAO". 2001.
• Methodological recommendations for “Initial training of rescuers of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia.” State Institution "TsEPP EMERCOM of Russia", 2009.

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.

Types of alethic modality

They are represented by the following restrictions:

1. Problematic (judgment regarding the possibility of an event occurring). Now the above example takes the following form: In Russia, reforms can be carried out in relation to the Armed Forces. Assertoric (judgments about a really existing fact). For example: In Russia, the Armed Forces are currently undergoing reform. As can be seen from the example, there is no expression of modality, but only the immediate fact of what is happening is stated.
2. Apodictic (judgments regarding the necessity of an event). Example: In Russia it is necessary to carry out a number of reforms in relation to the Armed Forces.

Judgment modalities, types

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.

Types and types of modal judgments. Assertoric and modal judgments.

Any judgment asserts the presence or absence of a particular situation. However, some situations in life are not simply present or absent, but present or absent by chance or necessity. If we are talking about the future, then we can characterize individual situations as possible or necessary, or as impossible, etc. Some actions and actions of people in society are permitted, others are even obligatory, and some are prohibited. As for judgments about our knowledge, the knowledge discussed in the judgment can be proven or unproven, reliable or not, etc.

Depending on whether judgments contain similar characteristics of phenomena, events, processes, etc., they are divided into assertoric and modal.

Assertoric are judgments that contain only some information and do not contain an evaluation of this information.

Example. “Man is a thinking being”; "Some swans are white."

Modal are judgments that contain an assessment of the information contained in them.

Example. “There may be life on Mars”; “Every person is obliged to obey the law”; “It is possible that extraterrestrial civilizations exist”; “The search must be carried out in the presence of witnesses”; “Sometimes students get excellent marks in exams by accident.”

All judgments expressing the laws of specific sciences are modal. By asserting the presence of any connection in the formulation of the laws of science, we affirm the necessary nature of this connection.

In some cases, in modal judgments, the characteristics of the situations they are talking about are not expressed explicitly, but are implied.

Examples: “No man can live without food”; "Some people can't lie."

There are several types of modalities, and within each type there are several types. Types of modalities correspond to the so-called modal operators - special words with the help of which the assessment (characterization) of the information contained in the judgment is carried out.

Alethic modality. Its types: “necessary”, “possible”, “impossible”, “accidental”.

Example. "Chance of rain tomorrow."

The following relations exist between the operators of this modality:

“It is necessary to A” ~ “It is impossible not to A.”

“Perhaps A” ~ “Not necessarily not-A.”

“Randomly A” ~ “Possibly A and possibly not-A.”

Alethic modalities have special significance in science. Science, first of all, is interested in natural connections between phenomena, the causality of phenomena, the possibility or impossibility of certain phenomena under certain circumstances. In general, when they talk about science, they mean a system of necessary knowledge.

Questions about what the necessity of some connection between phenomena or some event means, what is the meaning of a statement about the possibility of something, what grounds are needed to recognize the truth of statements about the necessity or possibility of some situations, have not been clarified to any sufficient extent. in philosophy, nor in logic. In philosophy, we usually limit ourselves to some metaphors, such as the fact that the necessary is “solid, stable in phenomena.”

Deontic modality is the characteristics of the actions and actions of people in society. Its types: “obligatory”, “allowed”, “prohibited”, “indifferent”.

Example. "No outsiders allowed."

The following relationships exist between the operators of this modality:

“Required A” ~ “Not allowed non-A.”

“Allowed A” ~ “Not necessarily non-A.”

“Forbidden A” ~ “Not allowed A” or “Must not-A.”

Epistemic modality indicates the scientific reliability of the information contained in the judgment, i.e. these are the characteristics of our knowledge. Types of epistemic modality: “proven”, “refuted”, “possible” (assuming that some statement is true), “knows”, “believes”, “convinced”, “doubts”.

Example. “It has been proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun.”

The relationships between the operators of this modality are as follows:

“Proved A” ~ “Refutable non-A.”

“Proved not-A” ~ “Refutable A.”

In addition to those mentioned, axiological modality (“good”, “bad”) and temporal modality (“always”, “sometimes”, “never”, etc.) are quite common.

The following notation is used to write modal statements:

Alethic modality: ð (N) - necessity; à (M) — possibility; ∆ (S) - randomness.

Deontic modality: O – obligatory; P – allowed; Z – prohibited.

Epistemic modality: D – proven; Op – refuted; K - knows.

Example. "KA" means: "Someone knows that situation A occurs."

• 1. Modality of judgments
• 2. Truth of judgments

LECTURE No. 13

Truth and modality of judgments

1. Modality of judgments

Modal judgment

- this is a separate type of judgment, which has its own characteristics and is characterized both by the presence of features common to assertoric judgments and by differences from the latter.

Modal judgments are studied within the framework of modal logic, which is heterogeneous in its content and divided into several branches. Among them: logic of time, logic of action, logic of norms, deontic logic, logic of decision making

and etc.

From the point of view of classical logic, one or another judgment can be called assertoric or modal. Obviously, these two types differ from each other. Modal propositions

can be called clarifying.
Judgments of this type not only give a characteristic of a particular object, describe, define it and its inherent properties, but also clarify and complement such a characteristic. In a simplified form, we can say that modal judgments express our attitude towards the object in question. Of course, this feature of modal judgments is reflected in natural language. Thus, in contrast to assertoric judgments (read: simple), modal ones contain a number of special words. For example, “proven”, “mandatory”, “possible”, “good”, “bad”, etc. These words are called modal operators. You can show the difference between assertoric and modal judgments by citing the following sentences: “Tomorrow it will be cold” - this judgment is assertoric;
“Perhaps it will be cold tomorrow” - as is already clear, this is a modal judgment.
From these positions, it can be argued that modal judgments are assertoric judgments supplemented with a specific attitude. However, the role of modal utterances is not limited to simply conveying the speaker’s attitude to the subject. There is a more complex pattern that is not noticeable at first glance: modal judgments reflect the nature of the connection between the subject and the predicate.
In a sense, they create it themselves.

Modal judgments are judgments that reflect the relationship and connection between the subject and the predicate and show the relationship to the subject with the help of modal operators.

In order to better understand the nature of this type of judgment, let us consider a number of examples. We will first give an example of an assertoric judgment, and then a modal one formed from it. “There is not a cloud in the sky and the sun is shining brightly”, “It’s good that there is not a cloud in the sky and the sun is shining brightly”; “Correct posture improves performance”, “Correct posture has been proven to improve performance” and “Pouring cold water improves health”, “Dousing cold water has been proven to improve health.” And also: “The runner in the second lane will come first,” “It is possible that the runner in the second lane will come first”; “Two multiplied by two makes four,” “Obviously, two multiplied by two makes four”; “An electric current, as it passes, heats the conductor” and “It is imperative that the current, as it passes, heats the conductor.”

The difference between assertoric and modal judgments in the examples given is obvious. Let's say the first pair of judgments. “There’s not a cloud in the sky...” is just a statement of fact, a description of two components of clear weather, devoid of evaluation, and with it any feelings and emotions. With the addition of the word “good” to the judgment comes the speaker’s assessment of this weather. From this judgment we can clearly conclude that he likes this kind of weather. The first type of judgment, like the second (i.e., both assertoric and modal judgments) can be either true or false. There is no third option. However, one cannot but agree that modal judgments have more variations and shades. They can often be interpreted differently, which makes it possible for errors to occur in determining their truth or falsity. Here it is necessary to mention that logic in general and modal logic in particular approach the consideration of the meaning of the words “possible”, “necessary”, “proven”, “obligatory”, as well as “necessity”, “obligatory”, “obligatory” derived from them. chance”, “impossibility” from a special point of view. If, from the point of view of natural language, the above words are only words and have different shades and meanings, then logic elevates them to the rank of categories. From this point of view, their interrelations and dependencies are considered. These categories are also considered within the framework of philosophy, which is most interested in their substantive side.

Thus, assertoric judgments

- these are simple judgments in which certain information regarding a particular subject is affirmed or denied. They are also characterized by the fact that they talk about the relationships between the objects reflected in them. There may be two or more such items. To clarify the above, let's give an example: “All professional skiers are athletes.” In this judgment, the concepts of “professional skiers” and “athletes” are correlated, and the first is narrower than the second and is fully included in its scope, but is richer in content, due to the fact that it has more features. A modal judgment, in contrast to an assertoric one, indicates the proof or lack of proof of what is reflected in the judgment, the necessity of a connection between objects or its randomness, the attitude towards the subject of the judgment from the point of view of morality, morality, etc. Modal judgments have the structure: M (S is (or not eat) P).

It must be said that assertoric judgments (as has already been described in other chapters) can be combined into complex ones using logical connectives

(conjunctions, disjunctions, equivalences, implications, negations). Modal operators are also great for complex propositions. In other words, complex propositions can also be modal. In this case, their structure will be as follows: M (a ^b) or M (a V b), etc. You just need to remember that there are five total logical connectives and, accordingly, complex judgments formed from them.

Words in natural language (including Russian) are characterized by a certain ambiguity. In other words, many words have different meanings but sound the same. Others, despite the fact that they differ in sound and spelling, mean the same thing. The latter also applies to modal operators. Thus, one of the modal operators can easily be replaced by another, without losing the implied meaning of the judgment. For example, the judgment “This athlete will probably come running first” will not lose what he has and will not gain something new if he replaces “probably” with “possibly.” Judge for yourself: “Perhaps this athlete will come running first.” This can be done in other cases as well.

Combining the above, we can call complex modal judgments such complex judgments that, with the help of modal operators, reflect the relationships and connections between the simple judgments that are part of it.

As described above, modal statements are formed using modal operators.

The modality of judgments has a number of modal concepts. They are quite well studied and systematized. At the same time, the systematization is based on the strength of modality, as well as its positivity or negativity. There are three basic modal concepts, although some scholars insist on the view that there are four. The three main modal concepts are characterized by the fact that the first of them is strong and positive, the second is a weak characteristic, and the third, in contrast to the first, is a strong negative characteristic. The fourth modal concept is intended in some cases to replace a strong positive concept and a weak characteristic.

Modalities can be logical and ontological, diontic, epistemic, axiological and temporal.

Logical modalities, together with ontological ones, form alethic modalities.

Speaking about the modality of judgments, modal operators have been mentioned more than once. They show the necessity of judgment or its contingency, possibility or impossibility. However, in the process, no definition was given of either truth or falsity and other terms from this series. Meanwhile, knowing the exact meaning of the above categories is important. So, the necessity of judgment means that this judgment is based on a law discovered within the framework of any science, including logic. All reasonable consequences derived from these laws are also recognized as necessary. The determining factor in this case is the factor of objectivity. In other words, the law must be real, not virtual, that is, it must correctly reflect the real state of affairs. Random judgments are defined as statements that, although not directly based on laws known to science, do not contradict them. The same applies to the consequences of these laws. In the case of impossible propositions, everything is obvious. Such judgments are those that contradict scientifically proven laws or their consequences. Possible judgments are based on common sense and do not contradict scientific laws and their consequences.

The above categories are what alethic modalities are studied.

2. Truth of judgments

Moving on to the question of the truth of judgments, it should immediately be said that often determining this factor becomes a difficult task. This may be due to the ambiguity of the words used in the statements, or to the logically incorrect construction of the judgment. The reason may be the complexity of the structure of the judgment itself or the impossibility of determining falsity or truth at a given moment due to the unknown or inaccessibility of the necessary information.

Determining the truth of judgments is directly related to comparability and incomparability.

Comparable judgments are divided into compatible and incompatible.

Incompatible judgments

may be in a relationship of contradiction and opposition. Concepts included in the relation of contradiction are characterized by the fact that they cannot be both true and false. If one of the contradictory propositions is true, then the other is false, and vice versa.

If one of the opposing propositions is true, the other is necessarily false, since they completely exclude each other. Moreover, the falsity of one of the opposing judgments does not mean the falsity or truth of the other. And indeed, the opposite of judgments does not mean that one of them is always true and the other is false. For example: “There is no life on Mars”

and
“There is life on Mars.”
These concepts are uncertain, that is, it is not known whether they are true or false. Both of them may be false. But only one of them can be true.

Compatible judgments

enter into relations of logical
subordination, equivalence
and partial coincidence
(intersection).
Subordinate compatible judgments. They bear this name due to the fact that one of these judgments is included in the scope of the other and is subordinate to it. Such judgments have a common predicate. Determining the truth of judgments that are in a relationship of subordination is associated with certain specifics, since one of the judgments is included in the scope of the second. In this regard, the truth of a general judgment entails the truth of the particular, but the truth of the particular does not reliably determine the truth of the general. The falsity of the general leaves the particular judgment uncertain, and the falsity of the particular does not mean that the general is also false.

Let's give an example: “Ferrari is a good car”

and
“All cars are good.”
The second proposition is false. It is subjugating. Moreover, the private judgment subordinate to it is true.

Relatively speaking, compatible equivalent judgments reflect the same phenomenon or object of the surrounding world

, but they do it differently. So, if we take for consideration two different judgments about one object or phenomenon, that is, two compatible judgments, then we will notice a pattern: in one case, both of these statements will have one subject, but differently expressed (although having the same meaning) predicates . In another case the opposite situation arises. However, in this case we are talking only about equivalent, but in no case about all compatible judgments. It goes without saying that when two judgments are equivalent, identical in meaning, if one of them is false, the second is false, and vice versa.

An example of equivalent compatible propositions are the following statements: “The Moon is a natural satellite of the Earth” and “The Moon is a satellite of the Earth that arose as a result of natural causes.”

When determining the truth of compatible judgments that are not equivalent, it is necessary each time to proceed from the real state of affairs: since compatible concepts often reflect the same object only partially, each of them in this case can be either true or false.

The intersection relation is characterized by the fact that if one such judgment is false, the other is necessarily true. This is due to the fact that such judgments have the same subject and predicate, which nevertheless differ in quality. Moreover, if one of such judgments is true, then regarding the other it is not clear whether it is true or false.

Table of contents