What is the name of backward reasoning in law, and what are the types of legal reasoning

The question of jurisprudence, right? It should be called evidence reasoning.

There are formal reasoning methods, logical reasoning methods.

1. Formal reasoning: deductive methods, inductive methods, and analogy methods.

Deductive Method: General-Special, the conclusion is contained in the premise, as long as the premise is true and the form of reasoning is correct, the conclusion is true, which is manifested as "syllogism" reasoning.

Inductive reasoning: Individual— In general, this method is used in "case law".

Analogical inference: Inference based on some of the same properties of two objects, so that they have similarities on the other hand.

Characteristics: 1) It belongs to deductive reasoning, indirect reasoning 2) From the special - special, individual - individual 3) Derivation of new meaning from the spirit of the law 4) The basis is insufficient.

2. Dialectical reasoning (substantive reasoning): When the premise of reasoning is a contradictory legal proposition, it is selected with the help of dialectical thinking.

Pick the best proposition to solve the legal problem.

Characteristics of dialectical reasoning: 1) the selection process of judges when faced with contradictory legal propositions, 2) in order to solve difficult problems caused by the complexity of legal provisions, 3) the dialectical reasoning process of judges on the law and the objective facts of the case, must be based on dialectics, and 4) the complex reasoning process made by judges on the study of contradictory movements.

Does the statement of fact have the force of law?

A type of logical reasoning, similar to dialectical reasoning, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, etc.

Legal reasoning is a category of legal epistemology that is at the heart of legal thinking. What it reflects and deals with is the complex relationship of rights and obligations between people, and it needs to be debated and proved more than other reasoning in order to achieve the purpose of clarifying the truth and making a fair judgment. Legal reasoning has the dialectical characteristics of the unity of thinking and practice, and it is the thinking activity of the subject in legal practice to logically deduce from the known premise materials and demonstrate the new legal conclusion, and it is the creative thinking activity with practice carried out by the subject in legal practice.

Hello, these are two methods of legal logical reasoning, the deductive method is from the general to the particular, which is the legal reasoning method of the civil law system, and the inductive method is the legal reasoning method of the common law system from the special to the general;

The deductive method is based on the principle of copying epistemology to understand the essence of things from shallow to deep, from coarse to refined, and conducts in-depth dialectical analysis methods.

The process of generalizing laws from individual phenomena is called induction.

The two are opposites, but they are both scientific methods of human pursuit of truth.

In law, the laws of civil law countries adopt deductive law, and most of them use legal concepts as a starting point to explain the principles of law.

The law of common law countries, on the other hand, adopts an inductive approach, and always discovers the principles of law from specific precedents.

It is generally believed that the civil law system mainly uses deductive reasoning to deduce the applicable conclusions of specific cases from abstract legal provisions, while the common law system mainly adopts inductive reasoning and uses specific precedents to summarize general legal rules applicable to individual cases.

I'll just do the easy questions.

Legal reasoning refers to a logical thinking activity that uses scientific methods and rules to provide a justification for the application of law based on the premise of two known judgments of law and facts.

Law and reasoning are two different things!!