Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ http://cyberleninka....arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Оппозиция знания и мнения в лингвистике и лингвистической экспертологии

Оппозиция знания и мнения в лингвистике и лингвистической экспертологии

Abstract

In the article the theories of knowledge and opinion are examined in the aspects of their using in expert research. They separate the statements of facts and estimated judgments. In the first part of the article the conclusion is drawn about contradiction of the epistemological understanding of knowledge and opinion from the gnosiological point of view which is widely spread in linguistics and linguistic expertology. A thesis is suggested proving the necessity to solve the problems of differentiation of statements of facts and estimated judgments without reference to the epistemological theory in its interpretation exsting in linguistics and expert practice. The second part of this article is the potential of conception of knowledge and opinion as the mental states of human consciousness for describing such situations of communication, which are regulated with a legal norm, is examined.

В статье рассматриваются теории знания и мнения с точки зрения их применимости в экспертном исследовании при разграничении утверждений о факте и оценочных суждений. В первой части статьи делается вывод о противоречивости, с гносеологической точки зрения, распространенного в лингвистике и в лингвистической экспертологии так называемого эпистемологического представления о знании и мнении. Выдвигается тезис о необходимости решения задачи разграничения утверждений о факте и оценочных суждений без обращения к эпистемологической теории в той ее интерпретации, которая сложилась в лингвистике и в экспертной практике. Во второй части статьи изучаются возможности концепции знания и мнения как ментальных состояний сознания человека для описания тех ситуаций общения, которые регулируются юридической нормой (статьей 152 ГК РФ).

Keywords

СУДЕБНАЯ ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКАЯ ЭКСПЕРТИЗА, УТВЕРЖДЕНИЯ О ФАКТАХ, ОЦЕНОЧНЫЕ СУЖДЕНИЯ, ОППОЗИЦИЯ ЗНАНИЯ И МНЕНИЯ, ЭПИСТЕМОЛОГИЧЕСКАЯ ТЕОРИЯ, МЕНТАЛЬНЫЕ СОСТОЯНИЯ СОЗНАНИЯ

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities