论命题与经验证据和科学证据符合

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。

The Correspondence of the Proposition With Empirical Evidences and Scientific Evidences

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.