>...In the real world, people usually attempt to solve problems by forming hypotheses and then testing them against the facts as they know them. When the facts

>...In the real world, people usually attempt to solve problems by forming hypotheses and then testing them against the facts as they know them. When the facts confirm the hypotheses, they are accepted as true, although subject to re-evaluation as new evidence is discovered. This is a successful method of reasoning about scientific and other empirical matters because the physical world has a definite, unique structure. It works because the laws of nature are consistent. In the real world, it is entirely appropriate to assume that once you have confirmed your hypothesis, all other hypotheses inconsistent with it are incorrect. > In the legal world, however, this assumption does not hold. This is because unlike the laws of nature, political laws are not consistent. The law human beings create to regulate their conduct is made up of incompatible, contradictory rules and principles; and, as anyone who has studied a little logic can demonstrate, any conclusion can be validly derived from a set of contradictory premises. This means that a logically sound argument can be found for any legal conclusion. The Myth of the Rule of Law: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I-JhqpU3_0r_HL06hP-5DABhEtGLX3g8/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I-JhqpU3_0r_HL06hP-5DABhEtG...