Abstract

This paper aims three objectives: to frame realistic methodological proposals within the normative theory of legal science, to show the variety of realistic models of legal science, and to present some of the practical reasons that justify taking someone of these models. For this, I will analyze a way to define «legal science» and I will offer a re-definition of «legal science» ampio sensu. Secondly, I will distinguish between the doctrines of legal science in the strict sense and the doctrines of legal dogmatics. Having identified the place of realistic legal science in this conceptual framework, I will describe four models of realistic legal science: that of Ross, the situation-types of American realism, the tarellian model and the New Legal Realism. Finally, I will offer four practical reasons to make predictions about how judges will decide future controversies.