THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT IN THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF PROOF
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2522-9656/2026-19-7Keywords:
expert cognition, forensic proof, epistemology, expert autonomy, specialised knowledge, methodological competence, evidentiary verificationAbstract
The article offers a comprehensive examination of the expert’s role in forensic proof within an epistemological framework, with particular emphasis on the expert’s standing as an autonomous cognitive agent capable of incorporating specialised scientific knowledge into the overall body of evidence. It highlights the dual nature of expert cognition, which combines formalised, objective methods of inquiry, standardised procedures, and instrumental measurements with interpretive activity. This interpretive dimension ensures the proper conceptualisation of facts, critical evaluation of data, and the formulation of scientifically grounded conclusions. The study analyses the limits of the expert’s competence and the standards that sustain it, including adherence to the relevant subject area, methodological boundaries, procedural requirements, and applicable normative and professional rules that safeguard the reliability and verifiability of expert findings. Particular attention is given to issues of subjectivity arising from professional experience, cognitive and interpretive frameworks, contextual influences, and methodological constraints of the techniques employed. Ways of mitigating these risks are considered, including procedural standardisation, quality control mechanisms, and the use of blind expert examination. The autonomy of the expert is underscored as a key condition for producing objective specialised knowledge capable of corroborating, refining, or challenging investigative hypotheses, as well as for analysing material, digital, and biological evidence. The expert is also portrayed as an intellectual intermediary between empirical data and the reconstruction of a criminal event, operating in close interaction with other forms of evidence. The article stresses the need for a systematic, critical, and methodologically disciplined approach to the evaluation of expert conclusions in order to ensure their reliability, objectivity, and practical value.
References
Kovaliv, Y. I. (Ed.). (2007). Literaturoznavcha entsyklopediia [Literary encyclopedia] (Vol. 2). VTs “Akademiia”.
Balbi, J. (2008). Epistemological and theoretical foundations of constructivist cognitive therapies: Post-rationalist developments. Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences, 1(1), 15–27.
Komisarchuk, R. V. (2018). Epistemolohichni osnovy kryminalistyky [Epistemological foundations of criminalistics]. Jurnalul juridic national: teorie şi practică, 2(30), 164–167.
Antoniuk, P. Ye. (2021). Metodolohichnyi analiz viiskovoi ekspertyzy [Methodological analysis of military examination]. Teoriia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky, 23, 388–399.
Dudnik, I. M. (2009). Vstup do zahalnoi teorii system [Introduction to general systems theory]. Kondor.
Savchuk, T. O., & Smyrnova, O. V. (2011). Kontseptualizatsiia modeliuvannia protsesu analizu problemnykh sytuatsii [Conceptualization of modeling the process of analyzing problem situations]. Visnyk Vinnytskoho politekhnichnoho instytutu, 1, 96–101.
Baranova, Y. O. (2015). Metodolohichni pravyla porivnialno-pravovykh doslidzhen [Methodological rules of comparative legal research] (Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis). Odesa.
Shemshuchenko, Y. S. (Ed.). (2012). Porivnialne pravoznavstvo: Suchasnyi stan i perspektyvy rozvytku [Comparative law: Current state and prospects of development] (2nd ed.). Lvivskyi derzhavnyi universytet vnutrishnikh sprav.
Bondar, S. V. (2002). Interpretatsiia yak fundamentalnyi sposib diiannia liudyny u sviti [Interpretation as a fundamental mode of human action in the world]. Visnyk Kyivskoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Seriia: Filosofiia. Politolohiia, 42–45, 55–56.
Pshenychna, T. M. (Comp.). (2016). Standartyzatsiia ta sertyfikatsiia: Metodychni vkazivky [Standardization and certification: Methodological guidelines]. ChNTU.
Yarovyi, A. A., Arseniuk, I. R., & Mesiura, V. I. (2017). Ekspertni systemy [Expert systems] (Pt. 2). VNTU.
Simakova-Yefremian, E. B. (2006). Zahalna teoriia sudovoi ekspertyzy yak osnova metodolohii provedennia kompleksnykh sudovo-ekspertnykh doslidzhen [General theory of forensic examination as a methodological basis]. Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy, 3(46), 225–235.
Haichenko, A. (2025). Sfera ekspertnoho zabezpechennia pravosuddia v umovakh yevropeiskoi intehratsii [Expert support of justice in the context of European integration]. Sudova ekspertyza, 1, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.32782/forensic.science.2025.1.1
Sudova ekspertyza: Perspektyvy rozvytku ta okremi vektory zmin [Forensic examination: Prospects for development and selected vectors of change]. (2025). Yurydyka.
Klymenko, N. I. (2007). Sudova ekspertolohiia: Kurs lektsii [Forensic expertology: Course of lectures]. In Yure.
Komisarchuk, R. V. (2020a). Diialnisna pryroda praktychnoho kryminalistychnoho myslennia [Activity-based nature of practical criminalistic thinking]. Pravo i suspilstvo, 2(3), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.32842/2078-3736/2020.2-3.17
Komisarchuk, R. V. (2020b). Perspektyvy rozvytku kryminalistychnoho myslennia [Prospects for the development of criminalistic thinking]. Derzhava ta rehiony. Seriia: Pravo, 1(67), 137–142.
Shcherbakovskyi, M. H. (2015). Provedennia ta vykorystannia sudovykh ekspertyz u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Conduct and use of forensic examinations in criminal proceedings]. V dele.
Shcherbakovskyi, M. H. (2024). Sudova ekspertyza yak zasib otrymannia dokazovoi informatsii z vidkrytykh dzherel Internetu [Forensic examination as a means of obtaining evidentiary information from open sources]. In Kryminalistyka ta sudova ekspertyza u XXI stolitti (pp. 279–282). DNDEKTs MVS Ukrainy.
Yevdokimenko, S. V. (2016). Teoriia i praktyka sudovo-ekonomichnoi ekspertyzy [Theory and practice of forensic economic examination]. Panov.
Parkhomenko, A. V. (2023). Problemy obiektyvnosti sudovoi ekspertyzy v Ukraini [Problems of objectivity of forensic examination in Ukraine]. Yurydychnyi chasopys, 3, 32–37.
Tkachenko, L. R. (2023). Nezalezhnist sudovykh ekspertiv: Mizhnarodna praktyka ta ukrainski vyklyky [Independence of forensic experts: International practice and Ukrainian challenges]. Visnyk Natsionalnoi yurydychnoi akademii Ukrainy, 4, 85–90.
