一个流行了八十余年的伪命题——对张荫麟“默证”说的重新审视

自张荫麟提出默证适用之限度问题,用以批判顾颉刚对尧舜禹问题的考证,八十多年来从未有人质疑。然而事实上,所谓“默证适用之限度”是有其特定的认识论背景的,是一个永远不能达到的限度。默证适用之限度问题是一个伪命题。顾颉刚论辩古史时对默证的应用,诚然是中国上古史“文献无征”情况下的无奈选择,但也因此获得了新的天地,开辟了史学新视野。相比之下,以不能自立之“默证适用之限度”为考史准绳,却难免自缚于逻辑陷阱之中。

False proposition: argument from silence reviewed 80 years later

This paper concentrates on Zhang Yinlin's criticism of Gu Jiegang's textual research about Yao, Shun and Yu with the abuse of argument from silence. Ever since the 1920s Zhang's opinion has sustained no critique. In this paper the author is to argue that “the limitations of argument from silence” is a false proposition. There are particular historical epistemologies beyond these limitations, which could not be used as a general rule. Because of the absence of historical materials in his textual research of Yao, Shun and Yu, Gu Jiegang used argument from silence as his main method. Just because of his “abuse”, Gu Jiegang created a new paradigm in his study of ancient Chinese history, while the excessive emphasis on the limitations of argument from silence could result in nothing but getting lost in its logical trap.