A Reasearch On Inductive Logic In Identifying Preponderant Evidences

Inductive Logic, as an importantly indispensable branch of the science of logic, has beenfaced with criticism, because of its over-premise conclusions in the academic communitysince the argument between Epicurean and Stoic in self-first Century BC. Especially it was inthe face of the challenge of the problems from Hume on the theory foundation, so it bear withan unfair treatment which does not match its function in reality, even it has been excludedfrom the "logic" by some scholars. In fact, although Inductive Logic is a hazard logic, as a"connecting the dots to the lines" wisdom, there is no doubt that what adventures can bring isprecisely the strong function of knowledge innovation. The essence of Inductive Logic is theresult of human sense, and it can give the human highly creditable "rules", which can helppeople make rational and effective choices.Of course, in consider of the reflection on induction’s defects from its probability, theauthor thinks: Firstly, just as a scholar named Liu Jianping said, the ways to deal with theproblems of Inductive Logic should be decomposed, and distinguished into different areas andonly in this, can the advantages and values of Inductive Logic be seen intuitively. Secondly,the probabilistic characteristics of Inductive Logic determine that we can’t obey blindly withthe knowledge coming from induction, and we should treat it rationally and use it reasonably.Therefore, by combining Inductive Logic with the phenomenon that inductive inertiathinking of "cases is justice in whole, but biased in individual" is abused in current civiljudicial practice", this paper tries to find some feasible ways to help the judge apply thereasonable components of Inductive Logic to the the identification and selection ofpreponderant evidence, in hope of it can justify for the superiority and the rationality of theInductive Logic itself superiority and the rationality of the perfect from two perspectives oftheory and practice, and advocate a rational understanding of inductive logic thinking; At thesame time, based on the thought of "combine theory with practice", I also hope that throughthe research on how Inductive Logic is used rationally in identifying preponderant evidence inthe civil judicial practice, we can expect that the judges may use induction, a good means,(although it is not the only way to maintain social justice) to make the base balance of the ruleof law which is vindicating for social justice--Judicial proof in a parallel base.This thesis is constructed as following: Introduction: put forward the research’s purpose, summarization, innovations anddifficulties.Part I: the pleading for Inductive Logic. Through introduce the summarization ofInductive Logic, analyze of misunderstanding of Inductive Logic which made it suffer fromcriticism, and discuss some rationalizations of limitations of the Inductive Logic itself, toemphasize that Inductive Logic itself is reasonable, realistic, and available, and to point outthat Inductive Logic should have its logic status: it is m．a．y． b．e．a "good means " ration".Part II: analyze the evidence and the natural requirements of the preponderant evidence;emphasize that the common of Inductive Logic and preponderant evidence is making the lawreally close to the truth; point out the possibility and necessity to apply Inductive Logic tocognize a preponderant evidence in judicial process.Part III: to appeal a rational attitude towards Inductive Logic’s status and do rationalpractices, this paper is to analyze of the judge’s bottleneck thinking in identifying apreponderant evidence in civil proceedings; based on this, then put forward some specificmeasures for a reasonable use of Inductive Logic in confirming a preponderant evidence, andmake a reflection on the judge’s thinking of summing up, by combining the concrete case.