本文旨在通过与方法论学家所做的观察术语和理论术语的区别作类比,来探讨法律与事实的区别,而这一区别既与术语有关,又与陈述有关。物质世界的社会化、社会世界的法律化以及证据限制的影响导致了法律与事实没有绝对的区别存在,在法律中也没有纯粹的“自然事实”。法律——事实的区别取决于“适用规则”。“混合术语”的问题一部分是司法实用主义的问题,一部分又与适用规则的特征及其广泛性有关。有关法律术语的语义实在论与语义工具论,相比较而言后者更广为接受。较先进的法律秩序更倾向抽象术语的使用。 The purpose of this paper is to explore the distinction between law and fact by analogy with the distinction between observational and theoretical terms made by methodologists, a distinction that is both terminological and statement. The socialization of the material world, the legalization of the social world, and the influence of the limits of evidence led to the absence of an absolute distinction between law and fact, nor pure “natural facts” in law. Law - the difference between facts depends on “rules of application ”. Part of the problem of mixed terminology is the question of judicial pragmatism, and in part it relates to the characteristics and the universality of applicable rules. The semantic realism and semantic tools of legal terminology are much more accepted than the latter. More advanced legal order favors the use of abstract terms.