According to Hägerström, it is characteristic of the constructive method to allow an unbridled form of argumentation.451 For example, when the fundamental principles of penal law prohibit a new principle of penal law being based upon an analogy, then the constructive method allows that the same (analogous) result is arrived at by means of an ostensibly deductive method (which in fact is an analogy under another name), the construction.Accordingly, by means of an ostensible deduction the constructive method allows the jurist to arrive at the same result, just as a direct analogy would have done. In addition, the constructive method allows such conduct notwithstanding the fact that deductive and analogous reasoning are of diametrically different natures. The former is analytic, the latter synthetic. Deductive reasoning applies only what is held to be absolutely certain, and that which can be derived thereof as its point of departure and method of reasoning, while analogous reasoning applies the similarities between one fact and another and what can be inferred thereof, as its point of departure and method of reasoning. Consequently, the validity of deductive conclusions are either valid or invalid, while the validity of analogous conclusions are true or false to a degree; true or false depending upon the persuasive power of the similarities possessed between the known facts and those facts if which one wishes to gain knowledge. Analogous knowledge constitutes a synthetic a posteriori, as the analogy is based upon known facts, which are allowed to serve as a pattern for the synthesis of new knowledge. Seen from a legal point of view, the invalidity of the constructive method can be explained as follows. In an example from penal law, from a systemic perspective, the principle of legality and the subsequent prohibition of analogies forbid analytic and syna ca l l f o r s c i e n t i f i c p u r i t y 519 7. 3. 2 the sci ent i f ic de fects of the construct ive method: deduct ion confused for analog i e s and f ict ions 451 Hägerström, “Svikligt förtigande,” p. 335.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=