推导作为诉讼证明的逻辑

推导作为诉讼证明的逻辑

Abduction as the Logic of Legal Proof

    期刊名称：《法学研究》
    期刊年份：
    作者：胡学军
    单位：南昌大学法学院
    中文关键词：推导;诉讼证明;逻辑推理;实用主义
    英文关键词：abduction;legal proof;logical reasoning;pragmatism
    中文摘要：
    关于证据与证明的传统哲学与逻辑理论存在着实践缺陷，形式逻辑中的演绎和归纳推理不能合理解释依证据进行的事实认定。证据的作用不可能是回复案件真相，而只是为特定假设提供支持。推导作为一种可废止和情境化的第三种类型的推理是契合诉讼事实认定的逻辑形式，这种内容求真的推理与形式逻辑上的演绎及归纳推理有着本质的区别。推导理论的提出会对传统证据法理论形成冲击，从这一角度我们会对证明标准与证明责任、直接证据与间接证据、表见证明与摸索证明、事实推定与经验法则等概念与问题形成新的认识。理解案件事实认定过程的推导本质，并对其缺陷有足够的认识，才能在实践中谨慎论证与比较各种假设，以全面的信息检验假设以避免最终的误认。
    英文摘要：
    In China, there is little serious discussion on the issue about the logical basis of the fact-finding course based on evidence. There are practical shortcomings in the traditional philosophy and logical theory of evidence and proof. That is, the facts of the case can never be obtained by precise logical reasoning, and the deductive and inductive reasoning of formal logic can not explain the fact-finding course by evidence reasonably. In fact, evidence can not be used to restore the truth, but can only provide support for certain hypotheses. In the judiciary, the method used to determine the facts is actually the so-called speculation in our daily language and psychology, whose logical form is abduction. As the third type of logical reasoning, this defeasible and contextual reasoning fits the logical form of the fact-finding proceedings.Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of American pragmatism, was the first philosopher to give abduction a logical form. Abduction is a reasoning process invoked to explain a puzzling observation. Unlike deduction or induction, it is a non-monotonic reasoning. This theory well integrates the sharp distinction between the so-called “discovery” and “justification”.The notion of abduction is a powerful tool for the analysis of legal evidence. Although not all the defeasible argumentations are abduction, the importance of abduction in legal evidence is not hard to understand. The theory of abduction will impact the traditional theory of evidence law. From this perspective, we will form a new understanding about a lot of concepts and issues such as the standard of proof and the burden of proof, the direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence, the primary-face proof and the fishing expedition, the presumption of fact and the rule of thumb. Only with the awareness and understanding of the nature of fact-finding as abduction, and with a clear recognition of its defects, can we argue and compare various hypotheses carefully and test them with comprehensive information to avoid mistakes.
    全文阅读：  点击下载