主管：中华人民共和国司法部
主办：司法鉴定科学研究院
ISSN 1671-2072  CN 31-1863/N
中国司法鉴定

中国司法鉴定 ›› 2022 ›› Issue (4): 1-11.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-2072.2022.04.001

• 鉴定制度 •    下一篇

科学证据的概念维度与评价范式——“法学”与“哲学”双重视域

曹 佳1，2，陈晓勇3   

  1. 1.华东政法大学 刑事法学院，上海 201620； 2.中国政法大学 证据科学教育部重点实验室，北京 100088；3.北仑区人民检察院，浙江 宁波 315010
  • 收稿日期:2021-12-22 出版日期:2022-07-15 发布日期:2022-08-15
  • 作者简介:曹佳（1989—），男，博士，主要从事证据法学、司法制度研究。E-mail：asidracao2010@sina.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家社科基金青年项目（17CFX066）；证据科学教育部重点实验室2020—2021年度开放基金项目（2021KFKT01）。

On the Conceptual Dimensions and Evaluation Paradigms of Scientific Evidence— From the Perspectives of Law and Philosophy

CAO Jia1,2, CHEN Xiaoyong3   

  1. 1. Criminal Justice College, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai 201620, China； 2. Key Laboratory of Evidence Science, Ministry of Education， China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China; 3. People’s Procuratorate of Beilun District, Ningbo 315010, China
  • Received:2021-12-22 Published:2022-07-15 Online:2022-08-15

PDF

摘要： 概念维度与评价范式构成了科学证据问题的两个基础层面。前者属于本体论问题，所要解决的是：科学证据是什么？后者属于认识论问题，所要解决的是：如何评价科学证据的可靠性。在锚定概念内涵的前提下，对科学证据所作之评价才值得信赖。透过法学与哲学的双重视域，科学证据的概念分为三重维度，即科学性、技术性与法律性；而科学证据的评价分为两种范式，即“理解范式”与“证成范式”。作为主流的“理解范式”面临着诸多困境，无助于解决司法实践难题。相比之下，“证成范式”则具有理论与实践的优越性，为科学证据评价指明了方向。整体上，科学证据基础层面的问题研究，有助于我国司法鉴定理论和实践困境的解决。

关键词: 科学证据, 概念维度, 理解范式, 证成范式, 司法鉴定意见

Abstract: The conceptual dimensions and the evaluation paradigms constitute two basic aspects of the scientific evidence. The former belongs to the ontology problem. What is to be solved is: what is scientific evidence? The latter belongs to the epistemic problem and what is to be solved is how to evaluate the reliability of scientific evidence. On the premise of anchoring the connotation of the concept, the evaluation of scientific evidence could be trustworthy. Through the dual fields of law and philosophy, the concept of scientific evidence is divided into three dimensions, namely, scientificity, technicality and legality. And the evaluation of scientific evidence is divided into two paradigms, namely, paradigm of understanding, paradigm of justification. The mainstream paradigm of understanding faces many difficulties and would not help to solve judicial practice problems. In contrast, the paradigm of justification has theoretical and practical advantages, pointing out the correct direction for the evaluation of scientific evidence. In general, the research on the basic problems of scientific evidence is helpful to solve the theoretical and practical dilemma of forensic appraisal in China.

Key words: scientific evidence, conceptual dimension, paradigm of understanding, paradigm of justification, forensic appraisal opinion

中图分类号: