Criminalistic thinking: between interdisciplinarity and terminological ambiguity

Criminalistics, as an integrative science, actively borrows concepts and methods from various fields of knowledge. However, such borrowing often leads to distortion of the original meanings of terms - especially noticeable in psychological concepts. The article analyzes examples of such terminological discrepancies, particularly focusing on the notions of "psychological contact" and "criminalistic thinking", which acquire a narrow professional meaning in criminalistics different from their original scientific understanding. Special attention is given to the debate around criminalistic thinking - its interpretation as a specific type of professional reasoning formed through experience and specialized investigative methods. Arguments both for and against this concept are examined, including criticism from psychology, where thinking is regarded as a universal cognitive process rather than a professional skill. In conclusion, possible solutions to terminological contradictions are proposed, including refining the term to “criminalistic strategies of thinking”. This adjustment would allow criminalistics to preserve its achievements while avoiding conflict with psychological science. Emphasis is placed on the importance of scientific accuracy when adopting terminology, in order to maintain the effectiveness and reputation of criminalistics as an interdisciplinary discipline.