实证法学概念笔谈  

A Discussion of the Concept of Empirical Jurisprudence

作　　者：白建军[1] 刘建宏 余频 程龙[3] Bai Jianjun;Liu Jianhong;Yu Pin;Cheng Long

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院,北京100871 [2]澳门大学法学院,中国澳门999078 [3]云南大学法学院,云南昆明650091

出　　处：《湖湘法学评论》2024年第2期5-17,共13页HUXIANG LAW REVIEW

摘　　要：本刊“实证·数量法学”栏目在上一期刊登了《“实证法学”的概念术语回顾与回归——基于文献的实证法学研究整合路径》。为帮助读者更深入地了解这个话题,编辑部诚邀对此领域有研究的学者或相关术语的提出者撰写评论或衍生论文。本期展现的三篇文章异常宝贵,四位作者在极短时间内贡献了精彩且极具深度的评论。白建军教授围绕为什么需要实证研究,从七个方面论述了实证法学研究立足于具体、实然问题,号召科学、客观地研究法律世界的实际价值。刘建宏教授和余频博士关注实证研究的原意,以弱化概念差异和消除误解为基本出发点,从历史过程寻找术语背后的共识,围绕理论思维、资料素材、定性或定量方法框架,阐明实证研究对四个方面法学问题的意义。程龙副教授围绕实证法学和人工智能法学在方法论与选题上的联系和差异,以二者的不可通约性为前提,论证了人工智能法学的正当性。三篇评论虽然主题各异,但都从方法和问题角度肯定了实证法学的意义,剖析了利用各种资料展开实证研究的价值,回顾和展望了实证法学现在及将来可以及可能取得的成就。The column of“Empirical and Jurimetrics”in the previous issue published the article“Review and Return of the Term of‘Empirical Legal Scholarship’:A Literature-based Uniform Approach to Empirical Legal Studies in China”.To help readers further understand the topic,the editorial office sincerely invites the proposers or participants of the relevant terms to contribute comments or derivative papers.Three articles presented in this issue are extremely invaluable,because four authors have contributed remarkable and profound comments in a very short time.Focusing on why empirical research is needed,Professor Bai Jianjun discussed the practical value of empirical legal research based on concrete and practical problems from seven aspects,and scientifically and objectively call for studies regarding the actual value of the legal world.Professor Liu Jianhong and Dr.Yu Pin focus on the original meaning of empirical research,drive from the ignorable conceptual differences and to eliminate the existent misunderstandings,address the consensus behind the terminology from the historical process,initiate the framework consisting of theoretical concepts,data approaches,and qualitative or quantitative methodologies,and finally clarify the four aspects in questions.Focusing on the connection and differences between empirical legal scholarship and artificial intelligence law in terms of methodologies and topic selections,Associate Professor Cheng Long notes the undeniable difference,argued for the legitimacy of artificial intelligence in the field of law.Although the three commentaries have different themes,they all affirm the justification of the empirical legal scholarship from the perspective of methodologies and problems,analyze the value of various materials to enrich empirical research,anticipate and review what it can and may achieve in future.

关 键 词：实证研究 实证法学 实证问题 法学方法 伪实证 

分 类 号：G254.21[文化科学—图书馆学]