16If we take legal practice into account, individuals seem to disagree with what the law claims. In general, they are not divided on empirical questions, nor do they seem to agree on how to decide where the law does not provide a solution or whether they feel that the answer it provides is unfair. Positivism, which gives a central role to convergence, does not seem to be able to properly reconstruct these cases. Many attempts have been made to respond to these criticisms while preserving fundamental positivist principles. I will analyze three of them briefly. 38 Dworkin, in fact, reconstructs Hart`s answer in the postcript, in which he defended the conventional nature of the law and the neutrality of his project, as a substantive conception of legality. No one has the right to express their disagreement with the company in this way. 55Drivement, in terms of interpretation, we cannot avoid the problem by saying that there is convergence in the sources. A degree of agreement is required for the law to fulfil its function as a driving guide and make the recognition rule useful.
These differences are also marginal and, if they were important, we doubt that it is a legal system. In any case, the recognition of the existence of interpretive instruments does not mean that everything is controversial: there is a broad consensus on the number of cases that can be resolved.43 44They reflect on the practice of acquiring knowledge. In this practice, there are individuals who, according to the scientific method, develop scientific theories about the world. Let`s say a group of shamans says we get knowledge by reading coffee grounds. Shamans believe that they invoke gods and that the gods manifest themselves by giving different forms to the sediment, so that knowledge of different aspects of the world can be acquired. Shamans believe that the practice of knowledge is precisely to invoke gods, and they think that scientists have developed another way of doing so. They could then discuss with scientists the best way to call the gods. On the other hand, the debate with the shamans does not make sense. If we evaluate both ideas, the fact that one of them is able to explain why the controversies between scientists and shamans make sense, and the other does not, is inconclusive. This example attempts to show why the differences of opinion between theorites cannot be seen as an argument in favour of one theory over another. It is not in Dworkin`s favour that positivism in its reconstruction can be able to adopt an interpretive attitude, thus able to understand the disagreements between theorists.
Indeed, it is not surprising that theorists of the law do not agree. This is an immutable characteristic of philosophical reflection.