关于侦查实践中证明活动的逻辑探讨

侦查实践中的证明活动,包括被证明者、证明者和证明方法三个基本要素。由于这三个基本要素是逻辑论证的三个基本要素在侦查证明活动中的具体运用,所以它们必须遵循逻辑论证对其三个基本要素的要求,并且遵守相应的逻辑推理规则。这样,在侦查实践中,侦查证据以一定的侦查推理方法支持或削弱侦查假说的证明活动,就可以在逻辑的框架内探讨。     

条件推理能力的发展轨迹：“单向”还是“双向”？

条件推理能力的传统认知发展观认为认知发展的轨迹是单向的,并只存在于一个加工系统中,认知发展存在着几个不同质的阶段,按由低到高的顺序发展,在个体发展的早期,其认知特点主要是以直觉加工为主,而后逐渐转换为以分析式加工为主,但这些理论无法很好地解释为什么年龄和智力的增长并不必然导致推理中符合传统逻辑规范的回答率的提高.双重加工理论对此提出异议,认为条件推理能力的发展沿着两条轨迹进行,一条径直指向计算加工和对问题内容的去情境化推理能力的增长;第二条是启发式的、高度情境化加工的发展路线,对那种认为认知是从直觉加工到逻辑数学加工的单向发展的观点提出了挑战.     

Introduction: the politics of public justification

ABSTRACT

Introducing the special issue, this introduction sketches a broad frame for studying public justification. Addressing the relevance of studying this phenomenon, we contend that justificatory processes are very much at the core today’s politics. Defining the concept inclusively, we highlight the relevance of communicative agency and, at the same time, the salience of communicative contexts that enable this agency. Casting our net widely, we show how public justification is related to other, more thoroughly studied concepts, such as legitimacy, authority and power. Encouraging students of public justification to add to our understanding of justificatory processes, we highlight multiple fruitful methodological avenues for studying the concept.     

司法裁判引证法律学说的功能研究——基于生效裁判文书的实证分析

法律学说是连接立法与实践的知识储备和理论桥梁,也是推动司法与社会互动的知识引擎和理论动力。学者的学术观点是法律学说的直接体现。在我国,存在司法判决引证法学学者观点的现象。实证研究表明,268份样本裁判文书中,有60位法学学者的观点被引证307次。法律学说在裁判文书中发挥着解释法律、论证说理及补充法律漏洞等作用,从而增强法官对法律事实性质或裁判结果判断的合理性和合法性,提升裁判结果的可接受性。从应然层面来看,法律学说要为司法裁判提供可能的参考答案,为司法裁判提供有效的法律方法以及通过司法裁判总结科学的司法规律。实证研究与理论分析表明,虽然司法判决可以成为法律学说的“试验田”,但是从主题任务和实践立场两分的角度看,法学与司法的适当分离是法治持续进步的阶梯。     

如何刻画法律推理中的事实与规范

法律推理过程包含着权力与利益、应然与实然、确定性与妥当性、客观解释与主观解释等矛盾,法律推理促动法律规范由普遍规则到个案规则适用,法律推理涉及法律事实认定、法律规范识别、法律价值追寻,涉及推理主体关于知识论与实践理性的思考,法律推理的重心由立法领域到司法领域、由法律本体论到方法论、由法律移植到制度理性整合、由宏观论证到微观分析的转向。法律推理呈现内部逻辑强制与外部言说理性互动的特征,已经由法律文本所体现的规范层面转向法律施行的实践层面,形成事实与价值、事实与规范的交互流转。     

Deficits in Theory of Mind,empathic understanding and moral reasoning: a comparison between young offenders and non-offenders

Previous research suggests a lack of pro-social skills is characteristic of an antisocial or offending personality. It is therefore reasonable to assume that an inadequate understanding of another's mental state may contribute to antisocial or offending behaviour. Forty-six young-adult male offenders and a control completed measures to assess: Theory of Mind (ToM), empathic understanding (EU) and moral reasoning. Significant differences in the performance of young-adult offenders and the control group were detected in ToM, EU and moral reasoning with young-adult offenders scoring lower than the control group. A positive association was also found between ToM, EU and moral reasoning. These findings contribute to a further understanding of how individuals make sense of, and respond to, the social world around them. The ability to measure ToM, EU and moral reasoning and subsequently identify any specific deficits, as well as recognise the link between these three key skills, is not only useful for researchers but it will also allow practitioners to tailor existing (or develop new) interventions specific to the needs of an individual. This could be particularly useful in terms of recidivism when applied to those involved in antisocial or offending behaviour.     

罪刑法定原则及其司法化研究——以刑法解释为视角

罪刑法定原则的价值取向应当是限制国家刑罚权、保障公民自由,是入罪禁止机能和出罪解释机能的统一。我国现行《刑法》第3条具有中国特色的双向表述方式堵塞了去罪化的路径,应当修改为消极的表述形式。刑法解释是罪刑法定原则的必然要求,而罪刑法定要求以严格解释和可预测原则作为刑法解释的限度。为了真正实现罪刑法定的司法化,刑法解释需要树立新的刑法理念;进一步加强和规范立法解释并对刑事司法解释进行完善。     

当代西方哲学的三个特质

当代西方哲学的第一个特质是"英雄时代"的结束,"大哲学家"、"天才哲学家"独自沿着一个纲领、一个方向构造哲学体系已不可能.当代西方哲学的第二个特质是认为哲学就是对大家习以为常的习惯、所遵循的那些基本原则进行理性的审查活动,从宏观的方法来分析,可以分为修辞学论理哲学和逻辑论证的哲学.当代西方哲学的第三个特质是研究哲学的人有哲学家和哲学史家两种,前者追求普遍性的哲学方法,后者追求特殊性的历史的方法.     

The policy scientist of democracy revisited

A recent appraisal by Farr et al. (Am Polit Sci Rev 100:579–587 2006) credited Lasswell with raising important questions of professional responsibility for political science. However, the appraisal rejected working answers to those questions offered by Lasswell and his colleagues without considering them substantively or comprehensively. In doing so, the appraisal misleads those academics in political science and other disciplines who may be interested in a genuinely professional role for themselves, a role that takes into account the social consequences of the exercise of their knowledge and skills. This article provides a more authentic introduction to Lasswell’s life and work and vision of the policy scientist of democracy, and suggests some alternatives for would-be professionals.

The logic of regulatory impact assessment: From evidence to evidential reasoning

Agencies involved in generating regulatory policies promote evidence-based regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) to improve the predictability of regulation and develop informed policy. Here, we analyze the epistemic foundations of RIAs. We frame RIA as reasoning that connects various types of knowledge to inferences about the future. Drawing on Stephen Toulmin's model of argumentation, we situate deductive and inductive reasoning steps within a schema we call the impact argument. This approach helps us identify inherent uncertainties in RIAs, and their location in different types of reasoning. We illustrate the theoretical section with impact assessments of two recent legislative proposals produced by the European Commission. We argue that the concept of “evidence-based regulatory impact assessment” is misleading and should be based on the notion of “regulatory impact assessment as evidential reasoning,” which better recognizes its processual and argumentative nature.