“反面推论”辩谬  

Refutation to the Fallacy of Reverse Inference

作　　者：孔红[1] Kong Hong(School of Humanism and Culture of China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学人文学院,北京100088

出　　处：《政法论丛》2018年第5期74-82,共9页Journal of Political Science and Law

基　　金：中国法学会研究阐释党的19大精神重点专项课题"社会主义法治文化专题研究"(CLS(2017)ZDZX08)的资助

摘　　要：反面推论是法律论证中的一种重要形式,但是关于反面推论学界一直存在着很多似是而非的论述。反面推论究竟属于法律解释方法还是法律推论方法?如果属于推论方法,这一推论过程在逻辑上是有效的吗?克鲁格在《法律逻辑》中将反面推论解释为逻辑有效的推论形式,这种观点影响了一批台湾学者和大陆学者,在一定程度上造成了关于反面推论的前提、模式、原理等问题认识上的混乱。反面推论并不是逻辑有效的推论形式,而是基于法律默认的一种可废止性推论。Reverse inference is an important approach to legal argumentation. However , legal scholars provid- ed paradoxical views about it. Is reverse inference an approach of legal explanation or legal inference？ If it is an ap- proach of legal inference, is it logically valid？ Ulrich Klug explained reverse inference as a kind of logically valid in- ferences in Juristische Logik. His theory has been accepted by many scholars across the Taiwan Straits, which caused chaos to some extent on problems of premise, pattern, principle .etc. about reverse inference. In fact, reverse inference is not a logically valid inference but a defeasible inference based on legal acquiescence.

关 键 词：假言命题 必要条件 相对推论 可废止推论 

分 类 号：DF0-051[政治法律—法学理论]