论文部分内容阅读
证据推理是一种事实认定推理,是法律论证的重要环节。根据经典逻辑学家的观点,推理通常被分为两种类型:一是演绎推理,二是归纳推理。证据推理显然本质上不是演绎推理,而是一种归纳推理。不过,这种观点事实上已越来越不适合分析证据推理,因为证据推理的前提往往很难用精确的概率来刻画,因为它是一种不完全信息推理,不可能用客观概率来刻画,而主观概率又具有很大的不确定性。但是,如果借助被称为第三种类型推理的似真推理来刻画证据,或许是一个比较的策略。因此,在本文中,我们首先讨论了似真推理的一些性质,给出了一个似真证据推理的模式,并给出案例分析。
Evidence reasoning is a fact-finding reasoning and an important part of legal argumentation. According to classical logicist’s point of view, reasoning is usually divided into two types: one is deductive reasoning and the other is inductive reasoning. Evidence reasoning is obviously not deductive in essence, but inductive reasoning. However, this view has in fact been less and less suitable for the analysis of evidence reasoning, because the premise of evidence reasoning is often difficult to characterize with accurate probability, because it is an incomplete information reasoning can not describe with objective probability, The subjective probability has great uncertainty. However, it may be a comparative strategy to describe the evidence by means of plausible reasoning called the third type reasoning. Therefore, in this paper, we first discuss some properties of plausible reasoning, give a plausible model of evidence reasoning, and give a case analysis.