The influence of the paradigm of forensic science on law enforcement

The subject. The subject of the study is the relationship between the methodology of the theory of forensic science and law enforcement issues. The nature of the forensic science and the paradigms of theory are subject to significant changes today. Philosophical and scientific postulates revealed differences in post-non-classical science. The author substantiates the need for the evolution of some essential criteria of scientific knowledge in forensic science. The article deals with the concepts of private forensic theories and the structure of the general theory of forensics. It shows the impact of scientific research on the needs of practice, the ambiguous nature of the preparation of practical recommendations, the complex path from basic forensic research to the integration of investigative methods in investigative practice.
The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis that changing the general forensic paradigms should lead to changes in the method of detecting and using traces of crimes in criminal proceedings.
The methodology of the research includes analysis, synthesis, deduction as well as private scientific methods of forensics, in particular, the doctrine of traces. The main results of the research. Any scientific research, especially in the field of forensics, is aimed at solving practical problems if they are unsolvable by existing methods and recommendations. Sometimes the problem, especially at the initial stage of its study, is difficult to be identified clearly. First of all, you need to prove that it exists, then define it in general, and only then look for approaches, methods of scientific research of its causes and essence, and concentrate on finding a solution. In forensic science, this is expressed in the identification of inefficiency in solving the problems of investigating crimes using existing scientific recommendations. One of the essential elements of private forensic theories is their practical implementation. Practical orientation in forensics implies the availability of knowledge that is potentially suitable for the development of practical recommendations on methods, techniques for detecting traces of crime and related events, means of collecting evidence, the possibilities of using the extracted and processed information for the purposes of criminal proceedings. The relevance of the results is determined by the significance of the scientifically proven tasks, questions and problems. For investigative practice, it is not the status of theoretical recommendations that is important, but their qualitative content.

Conclusions. Relevance in practice does not always determine the scientific significance of theoretical research in forensic science. The fundamental nature of scientific knowledge and overcoming outdated paradigms require time and at a certain stage may not be in demand in practice. However, changes in scientific views are strategically necessary for law enforcement and should be reflected in recommendations for forensic practitioners.

1. Capra F. The Hidden Connections: Integrating the Biological, Cognitive, and Social Dimensions of Life Into a Science of Sustainability. New York, Doubleday, 2002. 300 p.

2. Capra F. The web of life : a new scientific understanding of living systems. New York, Anchor Books, 1996. 333 p.

3. Capra F. The web of life. Moscow, Sofia Publ., 2003. 310 p.

4. Thompson M. Understand Philosophy of Science. New York, McGraw-Hill, 2012. 208 p.

5. Thompson M. Understand Philosophy of Mind. London, Hachette, Hodder Education, 2012. 192 p.

6. Thompson M. Philosophy of Science. Moscow, Grand, Fair Press, 2003. 329 p. (In Russ.).

7. Ruzavin G. I. Scientific theory. Logical and methodological analysis. Moscow, Mysl, 1978. 324 p. (In Russ.).

8. Exarchopulo A. A. Criminalistics: theoretical problems and practical solutions: textbook. Ufa: Bashkir State University Publ. 2018. 184 p. (In Russ.).

9. Chernikova I.V. The nature of science and the criteria of science. Gumanitarnyi vektor = Humanitarian Vector, 2012, no. 3, p. 89-97. (In Russ.).

10. Einstein A., Tagore R. The Nature of Reality. Modern Review (Calcutta), 1931, no. 49, p. 42–43.

11. Bachelard G. La formation de l'esprit scientifique. Contribution à une psychanalyse de la connaissance objective. Paris, Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, 1967. 257 p. (In French).

12. Bachelard G. New rationalism. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1987. 376 p. (In Russ.).

13. Swasyan K.A. Phenomenological Cognition. Yerevan: Publishing house of the Armenian SSR, 1987. 199 p. (In Russ.).

14. Rorty R. Rorty and Pragmatism: The Philosopher Responds to His Critics. Nashville, Vanderbilt University Press, 1995. 258 p.

15. Hildebrand D. von. Gesammelte Werke. Bd 1. Was ist Philosophie? Regensburg, J. Habbel, 1976. 264 s. (In Germ.).

16. Hildebrand D. von. What is philosophy? St. Petersburg, Aleteia Publ., 1997. 373 p. (In Russ.).

17. Karagodin V.N. Criminalistic paradigms, theories and research, in: Forensic readings on lake Baikal-2012. Materials of all-Russian scientific-practical conference, Irkutsk, September, 20-21, 2012. Irkutsk, Russian Academy of Justice Publ., 2012. P. 26-33. (In Russ.).

18. Exarchopulo A.A. Doctrine about the subject of forensic science as a theoretical base for setting current tasks. Biblioteka kriminalista, 2012, no. 3, p. 37-46. (In Russ.).

19. Karagodin V. N. Formation and development of modern ideas about the object and subject of criminalistics. Biblioteka kriminalista, 2012, no. 3, p. 47-58. (In Russ.).

20. Mamchur E.A. Images of science in modern culture. Moscow, Canon+, Reabilitatsiya, 2008. 400 p. (In Russ.).

21. Belkin R.S. Criminalistics: problems, trends, prospects. General and particular theories. Moscow: Yurid. lit., 1987. 272 p. (In Russ.).

22. Obrazov V.A. Problems of criminalistic systematic, in: South Ural Criminalistics Readings. Vol. 8. Ufa, Bashkir State University Publ., 2000. P. 5-18. (In Russ.).

23. Chelysheva O.V. Gnoseological bases of criminalistics (theoretical and applied research). Doct.Diss. Saint Petersburg, 2003, 322 p. (In Russ.).

24. Exarchopulo A.A. Subject and system of criminalistics: Problems of development at the turn of XX-XXI centuries. Saint Petersburg, Publishing house of Saint Petersburg University, 2004. 184 p. (In Russ.).

25. Maydanov A.S. Methodology of scientific creativity. Moscow: LKI Publ., 2011. 512 p. (In Russ.).

26. Tarasov N.N. Legal science and legal practice: correlation in the methodological context (on the practicality of legal science and the scientific nature of legal practice). Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal = Russian Juridical Journal, 2012, no. 3, p. 21-22. (In Russ.).

27. Nimande E.V., Terekhovich V.N. The essence of the subject knowledge of forensic science. Biblioteka kriminalista, 2012, no. 3, p. 37-46 (In Russ.).

28. Kuznetsov B.G. The value of knowledge: essays on the modern theory of science. Moscow, Librokom Publ., 2009. - 165 p.

29. Kornaukhov V.E. System of science of criminalistics, in: Kornaukhov V.E. (ed.). Course of criminalistics. General part. Moscow, Yurist Publ., 2000. P. 17-22. (In Russ.).

30. Terekhovich V.N., Nimande E.V. Logic of the structure and content of the theory of criminalistics. Biblioteka kriminalista, 2012, no. 1, p. 192-194. (In Russ.).

31. Baev O.Ya. Fundamentals of forensic science: course of lectures. Moscow: Eksmo Publ., 2009. 288 p. (In Russ.).