法学研究

文章摘要

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

DOI：

英文关键词: the confirming criterion;the testifying criterion;empirical evidences;scientific evidences

基金项目:

作者	单位
张继成	中南财经政法大学法学院

摘要点击次数: 1046

全文下载次数: 738

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.

查看全文下载PDF阅读器

关闭