Anything goes: An apology for parallel distributed legal science

Abstract

Doctrinal legal science seems to lack a proper method and purpose. This interpretation clarifies its value. The backbone of the argument consists of two theses. The first is that coherence-in a sense unusual in law-plays a crucial role in legal science. The second is that doctrinal legal science is a social enterprise and this should be considered in attempts to understand it. Based on these, a picture of doctrinal legal science is given consisting of parallel distributed constructions of consistent, comprehensive and expansive sets of legal beliefs. Given this, seeming weaknesses of doctrinal legal science turn out to be actual strengths.