摘要： 陈波教授将“认识论事业”界定为纯粹追求真理、价值中立的事业，进而构建了其与作为“制度性实践”的司法活动的二分关系，提出了“司法审判首先不是一项认识论事业”的论断。这一观点具有理论价值，拓展了学界对司法活动本质的认知，但此观点亦有一定局限性。从法哲学、诉讼法学、证据法学、法律逻辑学的视角出发，可以发现陈波教授的观点存在不充分二分、前提预设不充分等逻辑问题。对此，一个可行的替代性命题是，司法审判是一项商谈性认识实践，是以诉审商谈为结构、以证据论证为认知支撑、以正义实现为终极目标的多元统一实践。在此框架下，认识论强调的求真与司法实践的程序正义在商谈结构中互为构成条件，而非主从关系。

Abstract: Professor Chen Bo defines the “epistemological enterprise” as a purely truth-seeking and value-neutral undertaking, thereby constructing a dichotomous relationship with judicial adjudication as an “institutional practice” and proposing the thesis that “judicial adjudication is first and foremost not an epistemological enterprise”. While this proposition holds theoretical value and broadens scholarly understanding of the nature of judicial activities, it also exhibits certain limitations. From the perspectives of philosophy of law, procedural law, evidence law, and legal logic, it demonstrates that Chen Bo’s argument suffers from logical flaws such as an insufficient dichotomy and inadequate premise presuppositions. A viable alternative proposition is that judicial adjudication is a discursive epistemic practice—a pluralistically unified practice structured by litigation—adjudication discourse, cognitively supported by evidentiary argumentation, and oriented toward the realization of justice as its ultimate goal. Within this framework, the truth-seeking emphasized by epistemology and the procedural justice of judicial practice are isomorphic dimensions that constitute one another within the discursive structure, rather than existing in a primary-secondary relationship.

Key words: judicial adjudication, discursive epistemic practice, litigation-adjudication discourse theory, epistemological enterprise, procedural justice