法官在作出判决的过程中,并不只是逻辑推理的机器,而是需要运用一定的法律思维。在法律思维的几种模式中,以演绎方式进行的三段论的请求权方法缺少对事实与规范之间联系的必要重视,排斥了规范与事实之间的辩证联系;而循环理解的等置模式虽然克服了三段论模式的单向度弊端,但依然可能受判断者对结果选择的影响,为“假推论”提供合法的外衣。唯有结合探求行为者意图的等置模式才不会使法官停留在其属意的规范与事实当中,才是有效的和法官应有的法律思维方式。 Judges in the process of making judgments, not only logical reasoning machine, but the need to apply some legal thinking. In several models of legal thinking, the method of claim of syllogism, which is performed in a deductive way, lacks the necessary emphasis on the connection between facts and norms and excludes the dialectical relationship between norms and facts. However, It overcomes the one-way drawbacks of the syllogism model, but may still be influenced by the judgments on the choice of results and provides a legal coat for “false deduction ”. Only by combining the same pattern of seeking the intentions of the agents will not allow the judge to stay in the norms and facts of his or her intention, which is valid and the legal thinking that judges should have.