修辞在法律论证,尤其是法官的司法论证中具有不可忽略的作用。一般说来,修辞是一种非逻辑的、非经验的、非科学的说服方法,但它在修辞的过程中又恰恰为说服披上了逻辑、经验与科学的外衣。修辞论证(论辩)方法往往因为其不确定的实际效果,遭致人们的各种猜疑和批判。上述批判意见虽有一定的合理性,但是也存在对修辞论证方法的误解,对此应予澄清。 Rhetoric has a non-negligible role in legal argumentation, especially in judicial judicatory. In general, rhetoric is a non-logical, non-empirical, non-scientific method of persuasion, but it is precisely in the process of rhetoric to persuade to put on the logic, experience and science coat. Rhetorical arguments (arguments) often result in various kinds of suspicions and criticisms because of their uncertain practical effects. Although the above criticisms have some rationality, they also have some misunderstandings about the rhetorical demonstration method, which should be clarified.