COMPLEX CHARACTER OF LOGIC IN LEGAL METHODOLOGY

Problem setting. In the modern methodology, the issues related to the impossibility of fulfilling the general scientific logical requirements of completeness and consistency are actualized: "whitish spots" testify to the inability to achieve the ideal of scientific completeness, and legal conflicts - about the contradiction of legal norms, which is potentially present in the legal system. Therefore, in relation to the problems of modern legal methodology, logical investigations are conducted with the intention of realizing non-classical ways of reasoning. Recent research and publications analysis. In studies on legal methodology, the logical form is used as a "frame", for which the legal form is harmonized. Legal logic has distinct characteristics about traditional and classical logic, which need to be addressed. Researchers in legal logic refer to informal logic. Paper objective. The purpose of the article is to cover the paradigmatic characteristics of logic involved in legal methodology, justification of the logical toolkit in the perspective of the execution of legal tasks. Paper main body. At the legislative level and in the legal theory, lawyers rate a legal subject using the strongest and most effective in terms of achieving the truth and therefore the most influential practices of convincing logical forms and techniques. These, for example, include: modus Barbara simple categorical syllogism, known as litigation mode; modus ponens of conditional categorical syllogism, which is a logical form intended to form qualifications in violation of law (it is called legal syllogism); modus tollens conditional-categorical syllogism, which appears as a logical form as a formally-logical standard of the legal norm, etc. Thus, the logical form of legal qualification has a structure of conditional-categorical syllogism, modus ponens. On the other hand, legal logic differs from traditional and classical logic by the fact that it limits logical possibilities of cognition and implies deviation from logical rules, creating an exception in the logic of a legal subject. Limitation of logical possibilities is carried out from the point of view of the tasks of legal epistemology. That is, not all truths have legal significance. Restrictions and exceptions regarding logical rules are conditioned in particular by doubts as to whether the desired goal is achieved by qualifying concrete facts in terms of the logic of abstract subjects. Qualification from a legal point of view means establishing an identity (full or partial) of the attributes. The question arises: can there be identical signs of an abstract (or generalized on a high level) and specific subjects. The logical paradigm of abstract thinking is based on the ratio of gender and form, and the logical paradigm of specific thinking is based on the ratio of the part and the whole. In the practice of legal thinking, these logical paradigms are correlated in a special way. The proportion of the part and the whole are considered in the hermeneutical logic in the process of interpretation. Abstract norms require the establishment (or refinement) of the meaning, that is, the procedures of interpretation. Concrete facts are interpreted, provided contextual content they are given legal value. Conclusions of the research. The complex nature of the logic of lawyers appears in the simultaneous use of two logical paradigms (types of thinking), on the basis of which are also structured two types of interpretation