论文部分内容阅读
法律中的可辩驳思维,是不同于演绎性思维、归纳性思维与类比性思维的新型思维方式,是具有规则性、主体间性的对话、交流、辩论与反驳的思维过程。可辩驳性是法律知识逻辑结构的本质属性,法律中的可辩驳思维在根本上是以法律的可辩驳性为基本前提的。可辩驳思维对“法治可能性”的证成,在微观、中观和宏观上均具有重要的理论意义和实践价值。法律中的可辩驳思维在本质上并不必然导致法治的不可能性,相反在合理把握的基础上,可辩驳思维一定程度上能提升法治的可能性。
Refutable thinking in law is a new way of thinking different from deductive thinking, inductive thinking and analogical thinking. It is a thinking process with regular and intersubjective dialogues, exchanges, debates and refutations. Argumentability is the essential attribute of the logical structure of legal knowledge. Refutable thoughts in law are fundamentally presupposed by the disputable nature of law. Refutable thoughts prove that “the possibility of the rule of law” has important theoretical and practical values in terms of micro, meso and macro. Refutable thoughts in law do not necessarily lead to the impossibility of the rule of law in nature. On the contrary, on the basis of reasonable grasp, defensible thinking can to some extent enhance the possibility of the rule of law.