Course manual 2019/2020

Course content

We are all human, with our strengths and weaknesses, also within the field of forensic science. We may make mistakes in observations and in reasoning; others may make similar mistakes. It is important for a forensic scientist to learn what can go wrong and how it can go wrong. In this course, we will discuss the tools and methods we can use to spot shortcomings and support human reasoning.

The following topics are covered during the course:

Introduction to evidential reasoning and formal methods
Syllogisms, Propositional logic, truth tables
Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics of languages
Quantifiers and predicate logic
Problems with logic and formal modeling
Hypotheses and scenario reasoning
Argumentation Theory and Critical Questions
Common Sense knowledge, generalizations
Tools for supporting argumentation
Psychological Theory of Evidential Reasoning

Study materials

Literature

Objectives

1. Distinguish classical reasoning faults and detect them in presented and actual cases
2. Explain and implement formal and informal arguments and deconstruct arguments given these models
3. Solve simple logical problems
4. Apply (semi-) formal methods to concrete case descriptions in natural language
5. Sketch plausible scenarios for a given fact set
6. Criticize given lines of reasoning and make implicit assumptions explicit
7. Judge which approach to argument analysis is best given a specific case

Teaching methods

Lecture
Computer lab session/practical training
Self-study
Game

Learning activities

Activity	Hours
Excursie	16
Hoorcollege	22
Laptopcollege	16
Presentatie	2
Tentamen	3
Werkcollege	12
Self study	97
Total	168	(6 EC x 28 uur)

Attendance

Additional requirements for this course:

It is presupposed that all students will be present in practical classes. More than 25% absence will result in failing that particular part of the course.

Assessment

Item and weight	Details
Final grade
60% Tentamen	Must be ≥ 5.5, Mandatory
11.6% Week 1
1 (20%) Natural and Formal Languages
1 (20%) Induction, Abduction and Deduction
1 (20%) In a Mexican Restaurant
1 (20%) Tautologies, Contradictions, Contingencies
1 (20%) Soundness, Consistency and Validity
2% Translating Propositional Logic
6.8% Week 3
1 (50%) Logic Programming: Propositional Logic
1 (50%) Truth Table Programming
6% Week 4
1 (33%) Predicate Logic: Banana Madness
1 (33%) Predicate Logic: Models and Validity
1 (33%) Syllogisms
2% Week 5
2 (100%) Narrative Analysis assignment
11.6% Programming Exercise

All components will be graded on a scale of 1-10, with a maximum of one decimal after the point. These grades are used to calculate the final grade. In order to pass the course, the student has to have attended at least 75% of practical classes and the written exam and the final grade have to be sufficient, i.e. at least a five and a half. When a student has not fulfilled this requirement, the examiner will register the mark ‘did not fulfil all requirements’ (NAV) whether or not the averaged grade is sufficient

The components will be weighted as follows:

Written exam (60%)
Practical (weekly) assignments combined. These will have to be made on an individual basis and handed in in time via Canvas.(40%)

The final grade will be announced at the latest 15 working days after the final course activity. Between this date and 35 working days after the final course activity, a post-exam discussion or inspection moment will be planned. This will be announced on Canvas and/or via email

LO	Tested in component	EQ 1	EQ 2	EQ 3	EQ 4	EQ 5	EQ 6	EQ 7	EQ 8	EQ 9	EQ 10
1	1, 2							x
2	1, 2							x
3	1, 2				x
4	1, 2				x
5	1, 2				x			x
6	1, 2							x
7	1, 2							x

Table of specification: the relation between the Learning Outcomes (LO) of the course, the assessment components of the course and the Exit Qualifications (EQ) of the Master’s Forensic Science (described in the Introduction in the Course Catalogue)

Assignments

Practical classes will i.a. consist of practical assignments. These will have to be made on an individual basis and handed in in time via Canvas.

Fraud and plagiarism

The 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' applies to this course. This will be monitored carefully. Upon suspicion of fraud or plagiarism the Examinations Board of the programme will be informed. For the 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' see: www.student.uva.nl

Course structure

Weeknummer	Onderwerpen	Studiestof
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Timetable

The schedule for this course is published on DataNose.

Additional information

Fraud & Plagiarism: General UvA rules apply (http://student.uva.nl/fs/az/item/plagiarism-and-fraud.html). All written reports are submitted through Canvas assignments (view/complete assignments) to be automatically checked for plagiarism.

Last year's course evaluation

In order to provide students some insight how we use the feedback of student evaluations to enhance the quality of education, we decided to include the table below in all course guides.

Reasoning, Modelling and Data Science (6EC)	N=35
Strengths Overall the course was evaluated very positively The course scored high on learning outcomes The practical classes and the homework were really helpful and appreciated and were very well aligned with the theory in the lectures	Notes for improvement According to the students it was not always clear how the practicals should be applied in the forensic context The relevance and connection to the course of the guest lectures on digital forensics and archaeology was not clear.
Response lecturer: Compared to last year, the evaluation improved regarding alignment of logic lectures and tutorials as well as less negative comments about not receiving feedback on time. Students feel a need for a clearer link between the logic theory and the forensic context. It’s surprising that specifically the forensic guest lectures were less appreciated. It will be reviewed how to make it clear how programming & logic would be used by forensic scientists. First, it should be clear that this course is to strengthen their critical and analytical forensic reasoning skills. This course is in that way quite unique compared to other forensic science programmes. Programming is a tool to train their reasoning skills, but not a tool that forensic scientists use in their daily practice. Second, the examples used are predominantly from court cases. If this examples could be replaced by forensic examples this could improve the connection with the forensic context. The additional time that will become available will be used to practice more with argumentation schemes. The exam was the same level as last year. Students did very well this year.

Contact information

Coordinator

dr. Radboud Winkels

Owner	Master Forensic Science
Coordinator	dr. Radboud Winkels
Part of	Master Forensic Science, year 1

Logic and the Human Factor in Forensic Reasoning