首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      

学术争鸣中的常识、常理和常规——为《为什么检察制度屡受质疑》一文辩护
引用本文:肖松平.学术争鸣中的常识、常理和常规——为《为什么检察制度屡受质疑》一文辩护[J].衡阳师专学报,2008(4):26-30.
作者姓名:肖松平
作者单位:衡阳师范学院经济与法律系,湖南衡阳421001
摘    要:学术争鸣中不能断章取义、偷梁换柱,不能不顾常识、进行人身攻击,不能不讲逻辑、自相矛盾;除此之外还有很重要的一项规则是,当行使学术权利将陷入利益冲突时,必须遵守利益回避的原则。即使从最严格的学术规则来审视,《为什么检察制度屡受质疑》一文也无可指责,相反,《学术批评应当客观理性》一文却有累累硬伤。

关 键 词:学术争鸣  规则  辩护  利益冲突  学术回避

General Knowledge,Sense and Principle of the Acdemic Contentions
XIAO Song-ping.General Knowledge,Sense and Principle of the Acdemic Contentions[J].Journal of Hengyang Normal University,2008(4):26-30.
Authors:XIAO Song-ping
Institution:XIAO Song-ping (Economics and Law Dept. , Hengyang Normal University, Hengyang Hunan 421001, China)
Abstract:In the acdemic contentions, such phenomena should be strictly prohibted as quoting out of context, personal attack and self-contradiction. There is an aditional principle to be obeyed, that is, when exercising acdemic rights will make oneself fall into interests conflict, he must withdraw. Viewed from these acdemic normals, the article "why China's prosectorial system is always challenged" is above criticism, while the article "acdemic contentions should be reasonable and objective" is full of defects.
Keywords:acdemic contentions  acdemic normals  interests conflict  withdraw
本文献已被 维普 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号