| 摘要: |
| 我国法官的裁判文书说理欲实现规范化，必须重视法律论证，为每个主张与判断提供充分的理由。最高人民法院的指导意见表明经验法则是法官进行法律论证的重要理由。经验法则作为一种实践描述能够推动法律论证填补规范缝隙。在事实认定的论证环节，经验法则既是证明规则与证据规则的形成背景，更是事实推定的直接依据。只有妥善把握经验法则的盖然性，才能规避逆谬误与后见偏差等认知陷阱，合理借助经验法则论证三段论中的小前提。在法律适用的论证环节，经验法则是类比过程中相似点与规范效果之间相关性的判断依据。法官可以借助经验法则论证立法理由与事物本质，进而根据法律目的判断相似点的相关性。基于经验法则的法律论证既能回应当下释法说理的需求，也是法律论证理论扎根中国司法土壤的尝试。 |
| 关键词: 经验法则 法律论证 认知偏差 类比推理 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:浙江省哲学社会科学规划课题“经验法则在裁判文书说理中的适用问题研究”（项目编号： 20NDQN284YB） |
|
| Legal Argumentation based on Empirical Rules |
|
He Xuefeng
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| In order to normalize our judges’ interpretation of laws and reasons, we have to attach importance to legal argumentation, which means providing reasons for every proposition and judgment. Guiding opinions of the Supreme Peoples Court show that empirical rules are important reasons for judges to make legal argumentation. As a kind of practical description, empirical rules can promote legal argumentation to finish the job of filling up normative gap. In the step of justifying fact finding, empirical rules are the background of rules of proof and evidence, and are the direct bases for the presumption of fact. Only treating the probability of empirical rules properly, can we avoid cognitive trap such as inverse fallacy and hindsight bias, and furtherly justify the minor premise of judicial syllogism by empirical rules. In the step of justifying law applying, empirical rules are the bases of judging whether similar points has connection with normal effect. Judges can use empirical rules to justify legislative reason and nature of things, and then determine the relevance of similar points according to the purpose of law. Legal argumentation based on empirical rules can respond to the need of interpretation of laws and reasons, and it also is a try to root the theory of legal argumentation into Chinese judicial ground. |
| Key words: Empirical Rules, Legal Argumentation, Cognitive Bias, Analogical Reasoning |
