论命题与经验证据和科学证据符合

论命题与经验证据和科学证据符合

The Correspondence of the Proposition With Empirical Evidences and Scientific Evidences

    期刊名称：《法学研究》
    期刊年份：
    作者：张继成
    单位：中南财经政法大学法学院
    中文关键词：证实标准;证明标准;经验证据;科学证据
    英文关键词：the confirming criterion;the testifying criterion;empirical evidences;scientific evidences
    中文摘要：
    在逻辑学上，证实与证明不同，证实只能显现一个命题之然，而证明则可以显现一个命题之所以然。法官要想获得一个完整的内心确信，不仅要知其然，而且必须知其所以然，因此，诉讼证明活动中，一个命题的核证性标准由真的证实标准和证明标准有机构成——命题与经验证据符合就是真的证实标准，命题与科学证据符合就是真的证明标准。与保证性标准意义下的真不同，这里的真总是自以为真，是感觉为真，具有相对性，是可错的。
    英文摘要：
    Logically, confirmation is different from testifying in that the former merely presents 'what' a proposition is while the latter could also present 'why' the proposition is. For a judge to get a complete inner conviction in respect of a case, he must know not only the"what"but also the"why". So, in the proving of a lawsuit, the authorizing criterion of a proposition consists of the confirming criterion and the testifying criterion of t ruth. Confirming criterion of t ruth asks for the correspondence of the proposition and empirical evidences, while testifying criterion of truth asks for the correspondence of the proposition and scientific evidences. Compared with the t ruth in the sense of guaranteeing criterion, the so-called truth here is what is thought to be truth or what is sensed to be true. So it is relatively, and is fallible.
    全文阅读：  点击下载