归纳法在判例主义法律推理中的有效性与论证

法律推理既具有逻辑特性又具有法学特性,所以法律推理的有效性也应当分别通过逻辑视角与法学精神进行论证.判例主义法律推理融类比推理、归纳推理与演绎推理为一体,具有良好的自我检验功能.归纳推理在判例主义法律推理中占有重要地位,虽然归纳推理在逻辑上仅仅具有相对的有效性即具有"归纳问题",但在"归纳原理"的作用下至少能够保证推理结论的"概率真理性".     

论并案侦查的推理形式

类比推理是根据两个或两个以上对象在某些属性上相似,推出这些对象在其他属性上相似,但不排斥类比推理根据两个或两个以上对象在某些属性上相同,推出这些对象在其他属性上相同。类比推理是一种独立的推理形式。在侦查中,决定并案侦查的推理形式是类比推理,不是归纳推理。并案类比推理可分为相似补缺类比推理和相似归并类比推理。     

论语用学视域中的法律推理

语用学是从微观、语言的层面分析和把握法律推理的新视角。在语用学规范性视域中,法律推理是一种融合话语行为、命题行为和语用行为的交互言语行为。其中,"说者"与"听者"都是法律推理主体;达成合理共识是法律推理的目的和原动力;遵守合作原则是法律推理语言有效性的保证。语境通过语言选择的"装扮"来影响法律推理,是影响话语权分配、共识达成及合作原则遵守与否的关键因素。改善语境是发展法律推理的必由之路。     

法律推理中的法律理由和正当理由

法律推理具有逻辑方法和审判制度的双重属性,它的发展经历了一个从前者向后者的演进过程。法律推理是一个综合运用法律理由和正当理由的法庭决策过程。法律解释作为该过程的一个环节,是以正当理由阐释法律理由而获得法律推理大前提的手段。     

模拟情景教学法在《现场急救》课程中的应用

选择公安院校学习现场急救课程的72名学生随机分成2组：实验组与对照组,分别采取模拟情景教学法和传统教学法针对同一个内容组织教学,并对理论和实验成绩进行统计分析,然后对模拟情景教学法在现场急救中的应用效果进行评估。结果表明：理论成绩两组无显著差异,实验成绩实验组优于对照组。结论：模拟情景教学法在现场急救中的应用,有助于培养学生团队精神及综合分析解决问题的能力,并能提高学生的现场救护决策能力,同时也极大地提高了学生的学习热情和学习兴趣。     

Russian Public Sector Employees’ Reasoning of Ethical Behavior: An Empirical Study

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to examine the ethical reasoning of Russian public sector employees based on age, gender, management experience, specialization by the area of activity, and tenure with the current employer. Using t-test and one-way ANOVA statistical analyses, this study analyzed the ethical reasoning of 199 Russian public sector employees. Significant differences in ethical reasoning were observed among public sector employees based on age and specialization by the area of activity, but no significant differences in ethical reasoning were found among respondents based on gender, management experience and tenure with current employer.     

The Effects of Blaming Others for Legislative Inaction on Individual and Collective Evaluations

Legislators commonly blame others for gridlock. We posit that legislators may engage in this type of rhetoric to minimize the individual reputational risks associated with legislative inaction or to boost the relative standing of their party. In a series of six survey experiments, we find that blaming others for inaction undermines voters’ evaluations of individual legislators who engage in this rhetorical strategy. This effect is particularly pronounced among out-partisans and independents. However, blaming rhetoric can also enhance the standing of the blamer’s party relative to the opposing party across all groups (including out-partisans), in large part by undermining the reputations of these other actors. Ultimately, we show that when an individual legislator engages in blaming rhetoric, the immediate net electoral effects are null. This suggests that coordinated efforts by a party to blame opponents may improve the party’s relative standing, while imposing few costs on those engaged in blaming.     

Epistemic Reasoning and Adolescent Egocentrism: Relations to Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms in Problem Youth

This investigation addressed the question of how two forms of social cognitive reasoning – epistemic reasoning and adolescent egocentrism – interface with externalizing and internalizing forms of psychopathology during adolescence. Adolescents’ epistemic reasoning (i.e., types of belief entitlement, or degree of doubt, held by an individual when confronted with contradictory sides of an issue), and imaginary audience and personal fable ideation, were assessed in a sample of 29 adolescent boys with behavioral problems and 30 of their peers without behavioral problems. To assess internalizing and externalizing symptomatology, teachers completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-TRF). Results revealed that, compared to those without behavior problems, boys with behavioral problems were lower in epistemic reasoning. Further analyses revealed consistent relations between dimensions of social cognitive reasoning to specific forms of psychopathology. These findings suggest that social cognitive reasoning, particularly epistemic doubt, is important in understanding problem behaviors among typical and atypical adolescents.

推理与解释：寓于其中的法律思维

法律解释与法律推理是两种相对独立的法律方法,它们对法治建设有着不同的意义。法律解释的功能是要充分展示法律文本的各种可能意义,而法律推理则强调结论的必然得出。由于二者都强调根据法律进行解释或推理,因而拥有大体相似的思维走向,但作为不同的方法却有着许多细微的区分。正是这些既相互联系又有区别的方法(如法律发现、法律解释、法律论证、价值衡量、法律推理等)构成了法律方法论体系。当我们对这些法律方法有了深入系统的了解后,方法论向本体论的转向就水到渠成了。     

法官谈裁判文书改革

裁判文书是审判方式改革成果的集中体现 ,反映了审判人员综合素质。裁判说理是法官的法定义务 ,必须做到正确、客观、全面、规范