法律的社会科学研究何以可能

How the Social Sciences of Law are Possible

在对"法律的社会科学研究何以可能"这一问题的追问中,充满了多元互竞的主张。此方面以往的绝大多数论证,基本上都没有从法学是一门规范科学这一学科属性出发,故而是不彻底的。不同于法教义学利用法律规范来认定事实、涵摄事实、评价事实,法律的社会科学研究致力于描述事实、解释事实以及预测事实。法律的社会科学研究关注的经验事实,可分为关于法律的事实和作为事实的法律。这两种事实研究分别在知识成果和研究方法的意义上为法教义学提供了知识供给,填补了法教义学的方法缺漏。法教义学和分析法学用来反对法律的社会科学研究的理由,主要有取代论、僭越论和还原论三种。取代论是一种没有根据的主张,僭越论误读了"是"与"应当"的关系,而还原论的批评则忽视了社会科学研究中的解释主义传统。故而这三种误解都是立场先行的结果,陷入了为批判而批判的误区。

When comes to the academic topic that how the social sciences of law are possible,there are many competing propositions,but much of these arguments is not based on the point of view that jurisprudence is a normative science,so they are not complete. Unlike legal dogmatic,which uses legal norms to ascertain facts,to subsume facts,and to evaluate facts,the social sciences of law are devoted to describing facts,explaining facts,and predicting facts. The empirical facts concerned with the social sciences of law are divided into empirical facts about the law and laws as empirical facts. The study of these two empirical facts provides knowledge supply and fills the gaps in legal doctrine in the significance of knowledge and research methods respectively. There are three main reasons explanining legal dogmatic’s objection to social sciences of law: the superseding theory,the overstep theory,and the reduction theory. The substitute theory is an unfounded assumption,the overstep theory misreads the relationship between is and ought,and the criticism of the reduction theory ignores the explanatoryism tradition of social sciences. All these three misunderstandings are the result of criticism for criticism’s sake.