David Tan (Deakin University, Geelong, Australia – Deakin Law School) has posted Is it possible to have legal knowledge without legal inference? on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Is there a systematic and proper method of legal reasoning or is legal reasoning more open-ended and organic and leading to pluralistic conclusions? I refer to a system of legal inference as a system of legal reasoning that fits the first description; ie there is a systematic and proper methodology for drawing conclusions based on certain premises. Rules of legal inference tell us how to reason to the correct interpretation of statutes or resolution of cases based on the facts before us. I argue that legal knowledge is not possible without there being at least one system of legal inference leading to a unique legal solution (although what we consider to be a legal solution could be trivalent: true, false or indeterminate). If this kind of legal inference is impossible then law will be arbitrary or permits inconsistency. Thus, those who deny the possibility of legal inference must grapple with serious consequences for the possibility of legal knowledge.