Course manual 2020/2021

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
6.2% Week 1	Mandatory
37.5% Induction, Abduction and Deduction
25% In a Mexican Restaurant
37.5% Soundness, Consistency and Validity
7.4% Week 2	Mandatory
31.6% Natural and Formal Languages
42.1% Tautologies, Contradictions, Contingencies
26.3% Translating propositional logic
6.8% Week 3	Mandatory
55.6% Truth Table Programming
44.4% Logic Programming: Propositional Logic
6% Week 4	Mandatory
33.3% Predicate Logic: Banana Madness
33.3% Predicate Logic: Models and Validity
33.3% Syllogisms
2% Week 5	Mandatory
10 (100%) Narrative Analysis assignment
11.6% Programming Exercise	Mandatory

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, all components 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 (January 15th). Between this date and 35 working days after the final course activity (February 12th), a post-exam discussion or inspection moment will be planned. This will be announced on Canvas and/or via email.

Learning Outcome	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=34
Strengths Teaching of both teachers, participation was stimulated which is important considering the ‘philosophical’ aspect of the course. All the assignments and quizzes. It helped the students to understand the lectures. The structured schedule of the course (lecture, practical class, lecture).	Notes for improvement The archeology lecture. This lecture was out of place with the rest of the content of the course. The relation between archeology and forensic reasoning was not clear. Reasoning argumentation schemes. Students felt they needed more practice. The structure of the practical class by one of the teachers. Individual advise was given even though almost all students had the exact same question. This took too much time and students were waiting for explanations in order to be able to proceed.
Response lecturer: We will review the placement of the archeology lecture in the curriculum. Maybe the Reasoning course is not the best fit. We will not schedule more practice sessions, but we will investigate if we can add more practice on reasoning/argumentation schemes through quizzes. The advice on individual vs. plenary advise is a very good remark. The teachers will take that into account for next year to do this from the start.

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