0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
27 Ansichten16 Seiten
The authors argue that while empirical methodology is important, much legal scholarship is not empirical in nature and focuses instead on doctrinal, interpretive, and normative analysis. They reject the claim by Epstein and King that all legal scholarship should adhere strictly to empirical rules of inference, as this ignores large parts of legal scholarship that operate from within the legal field rather than as external empirical analysis. The authors acknowledge empirical analysis could potentially improve some legal scholarship but maintain it is not universally applicable.
The authors argue that while empirical methodology is important, much legal scholarship is not empirical in nature and focuses instead on doctrinal, interpretive, and normative analysis. The…