继休谟(Hume)问题后,学界又出现了亨佩尔(Hempel)确证悖论,它构成了对归纳推理深刻的质疑。确证悖论提示我们,演绎的规则似乎是越界进行要求了。有人指出,确证悖论中的等值条件过界使用是构成上述该悖论的关键点。这让我思考,是演绎规则不具有普适性还是我们将某些东西放错地方了?演绎因其具有保真性而受到许多人青睐,甚至狭义的逻辑即指演绎逻辑。然而,演绎规则却在使用中造成一些问题。笔者在关注悖论时,注意到国内外学者在对待这些传统而重要的问题时,争议颇多。于是,本文试图以点带面,揭示演绎规则在面对经验问题时的使用情况,以期对这方面的研究有所推动。 Following the Hume problem, there is a Hertz Confirmation Paradox in the academic community that constitutes a profound questioning of inductive reasoning. The confirmation paradox prompts us that the rules of deduction seem to be beyond the bounds of the requirements. It was pointed out that the use of the equivalent conditions in the corroboration paradox was the key point that constituted the above paradox. This makes me think whether deductive rules are not universal or where we put something wrong. Deductions are favored by many because of their fidelity, and even narrowly defined logic refers to the deductive logic. However, the deductive rules have caused some problems in their use. When I pay close attention to the paradox, I noticed that domestic and foreign scholars have a lot of controversies when dealing with these traditional and important issues. Therefore, this article tries to reveal the use of deductive rules in the face of empirical problems with a point to the surface, with a view to promoting this research.