CAJ | 학술논문

个别学者对张荫麟批评“默证”的理解是不准确的，其驳张荫麟之“默证”和“限度”，亦因多涉抽象玄思和枝蔓而流于“清议”，因此并不能推翻张荫麟对“默证”的批评。所谓“层累”说不关注历史本体的说法是错误的，它是强调对历史本体的“移置”认识；所谓不追求历史本体就可以使用“默证”，逻辑上自相矛盾，事实上流于诡辩。史书中之因承性内容，决定了“层累”说以史书之年代决史书内容之年代的做法每每陷于偏颇。因此，“层累”说对历史本体的“移置”认识，实质上是割断了历史发展中的因承，突出强调“造作”。历史研究上有“一分材料说一分话”，强调严谨固然不错，但如果因此否定在现有材料基础之上的触类旁通和推论，则不免流于“冰山”式的直观反映论。
개별학자대장음린비평“묵증”적리해시불준학적，기박장음린지“묵증”화“한도”，역인다섭추상현사화지만이류우“청의”，인차병불능추번장음린대“묵증”적비평。소위“층루”설불관주역사본체적설법시착오적，타시강조대역사본체적“이치”인식；소위불추구역사본체취가이사용“묵증”，라집상자상모순，사실상류우궤변。사서중지인승성내용，결정료“층루”설이사서지년대결사서내용지년대적주법매매함우편파。인차，“층루”설대역사본체적“이치”인식，실질상시할단료역사발전중적인승，돌출강조“조작”。역사연구상유“일분재료설일분화”，강조엄근고연불착，단여과인차부정재현유재료기출지상적촉류방통화추론，칙불면류우“빙산”식적직관반영론。
Some scholars Their arguments against of empty discussion that rects no attention to his did not fully understand Zhang Yinlin＇s criticism on argument from silence. Zhang were somewhat abstract and minor details, thus remaining only a kind could not really reject his criticism. The view that ＇theory of heaping up＇ ditorical ontology does not hold water. On the contrary, this theory puts emphasis on transposition of the historical ontology. In addition, the view that argument from silence can be used when directing no attention to historical ontology is logically self-contradictory and sophistry. In fact, the inherent relationship among the historical materials determines that the practice that chronology of the historical materials decides chronology of content of historical materials is not so appropriate. Therefore, the view that ＇theory of heaping up＇ is ＇transposition＇ of historical ontology actually separated this inherent relationship in the development of history. It is very important to stick strictly to the historical materials for historical research. However, if the argument is too much based on the historical materials without any inference or deduction, the truth will remain to be the tip of an iceberg.