话语主位推进与司法判决推理

司法判决书是裁判过程的书面表达。法官作出裁判的过程,实质上就是以认定的案件事实和相关的法律规范为前提,运用演绎形式推理合乎逻辑地推演出判决结论的司法判决推理过程。主位推进理论研究连贯语篇中决定句子内容成份排列和句子之间配列、进而决定整个语篇语义内容发展方向的各个小句的主位、述位之间的联系和变化。依据横向话语流时间维度和纵向话语主位结构成分逻辑关系维度构建的话语主位推进分析框架,运用定性研究方法,探讨一篇优秀民事判决书的“本院认为……”部分如何实现演绎形式推理和法律命题内容实质推理双重共振的司法判决推理过程。     

Informational Cues,Partisan-Motivated Reasoning,and the Manipulation of Conspiracy Beliefs

In this article, we examine the relationship between partisan-motivated reasoning and uncertainty-inducing official information cues with respect to conspiracy beliefs. We find that while partisanship matters when it comes to conspiracy beliefs, the uncertainty-inducing and countervailing nature of official cues can further inflame conspiracy beliefs when it is not in the political interest of individuals to subscribe to a given conspiracy theory. Contrary to expectations, we find that cueing Democratic self-identifiers with different types of official responses to conspiracy theories that implicate Republicans has no effect. However, such informational cues do significantly increase conspiracy beliefs among Republicans, even when a Republican is implicated in the conspiracy theory. Although partisan-motivated reasoning has a baseline effect on conspiracy beliefs, the extent to which these beliefs can further be manipulated appears asymmetric across party lines. Simply put, Republicans appear to be more susceptible to conspiratorial cues than Democrats.     

Unpacking public justification

ABSTRACT

This brief response to Greenfeld’s caveat submits that public justification is not omnipresent, but can extend, and has extended, beyond the modern, liberal West. Subscribing to a thin, rather than thick, conceptualization of public justification, we chart the contested contours of public justification, and urge scholars of this emergent field to clarify their own take before advancing pertinent theories and case studies. We briefly expound the nature and historical roots of both ‘justification’ and ‘the public’, suggesting that their amalgam into public justification transcends the modern, liberal West.     

The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments

We report the results of an experiment designed to replicate and extend recent findings on motivated political reasoning. In particular, we are interested in disconfirmation biases—the tendency to counter-argue or discount information with which one disagrees—in the processing of political arguments on policy issues. Our experiment examines 8 issues, including some of local relevance and some of national relevance, and manipulates the presentation format of the policy arguments. We find strong support for our basic disconfirmation hypothesis: people seem unable to ignore their prior beliefs when processing arguments or evidence. We also find that this bias is moderated by political sophistication and strength of prior attitude. We do not find, however, that argument type matters, suggesting that motivated biases are quite robust to changes in argument format. Finally, we find strong support for the polarization of attitudes as a consequence of biased processing.

Can Jurors Recognize Missing Control Groups,Confounds, and Experimenter Bias in Psychological Science?

This study examined the ability of jury-eligible community members (N = 248) to detect internal validity threats in psychological science presented during a trial. Participants read a case summary in which an expert testified about a study that varied in internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low). Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group versions only. Internal validity did not influence verdict or ratings of plaintiff credibility and no differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Expert evidence quality, expert credibility, and plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for the scientific reasoning literature and for trials containing psychological science are discussed.     

论法律原则在司法审判中的适用--兼从法律推理的逻辑形式角度

在司法审判过程中 ,明文规定在法律文本中的法律原则在个案审判中具有可诉性。第一 ,法律文本中的法律原则规定对整个法律体系具有的统帅作用也应该体现在个案审判时对具体规则适用的检验上。第二 ,法律原则能更好体现法律的精神从而弥补具体条款的不足。第三 ,明文规定在法律文本中的法律原则不是法律文本中多余的内容 ,仅规定在条文上而不适用在案件中无异于使法律原则的规定成为虚设。第四 ,在个案中 ,法律原则具体化为特定的法律规范后 ,具有明确的内容 ,操作性问题并不成为其适用的阻碍     

论刑案侦查的思维特征

刑案侦查的思维特征是由刑案侦查的特殊性决定的。刑案侦查往往是由犯罪所造成的结果出发,剥茧似地追溯造成该结果之诸种原因(条件),进而再追溯制造这原一因的作案人,从而缉捕犯罪嫌疑人归案。而回溯推理正是以果推因,故回溯推理是刑案侦查最常用最重要的思维形式。刑案侦查之回溯推理有“充分条件式”、“必要条件式”、“充要条件式”、“二难破斥式”等。由于犯罪事件之间的关系有一果多因、一因多果、多果多因,故由果究因之回溯推理所得结论大都是或然的,然而,正是这连续的或然性逐步缩小侦查范围,确定侦查方向,锁定侦查目标,直至缉拿犯罪嫌疑人归案。     

类比推理在侦查中的应用

类比推理虽然获得的是或然的结论,但其“触类旁通”的作用在侦查工作中能帮助侦查人员打开思路,认清案情,同时还有助于侦查假说的提出。在侦查工作中,还可以采用模拟类比的方法。     

Arguing a fortiori

Courts and lawyers often argue a fortiori . Sometimes they actually use the Latin phrase to indicate that their conclusions do not just follow, but ‘follow a fortiori ’ from certain premises. These are taken to be inferences of a distinct and important kind. But how exactly are they distinct, and why are they important? Despite their popularity, a fortiori arguments are not well understood and have not drawn much attention from legal theorists. This paper pursues two goals. The first is to bring out the form of a fortiori arguments, articulating those assumptions that, though typically left unstated, are necessary elements of arguments of this kind. The second goal is to say something about the point of such arguments, and to characterise the sort of context in which an arguer will have reason to deploy an a fortiori rather than an inference of a different type.     

类比推理及其在刑侦中的运用

类比推理是一种从特殊到特殊的推理,其结论虽是或然的,但类比对象的广泛性及本身强烈的探索功能使得它在刑侦破案中经常采用,特别在侦查实验中更具重大的使用价值。