本文是对孙笑侠教授《法律人思维的二元论》一文若干观点的回应与质疑。孙笑侠教授写作协调规范与事实构建法律人思维的二元性,但其二元论混淆了事实与规范、实然与应然,并因为视野狭隘而值得商榷。本文认为,法律人思维不能故步自封,不论是法学家、立法者、行政者还是传统的司法者都有彼此交叉但又各自独立的思维,一味的大一统是无谓的;而且法律人先判后证,其思维遵循的是后果主义,而法律方法只是正当化了论证和说理。作为一个意涵丰富的概念,不可能仅仅由法律方法一言以蔽之,并因此也在应然上需要一种更为开阔的法律人思维和探讨。 This essay is a response and question to several opinions of Professor Sun Xiaoxia's “dualism of legal person's thinking”. Professor Sun Xiao-xia's writing coordinates the norms and facts to construct the duality of legal person's thinking. However, his dualism confuses facts and norms, which is true and deserved, and is debatable because of his narrow field of vision. This article argues that legal people can not be complacent about their thinking. Whether they are jurists, legislators, administrators or traditional jurists, they all have their own but independent thinking. Blind unification is pointless; , Its thinking follows the consequences of the doctrine, and legal methods just justify the argument and reasoning. As a concept rich in meaning, it can not be said by the legal method in a single word, and therefore a more open legal person should be thought and discussed.