This section contains three articles out of this Web site articulating scientific perspectives and methods for solving legal problems, and two articles addressing equally serious problems that do not articulate scientific perspectives and methods.
They are collected here to demonstrate the dramatic difference in outlook and problem solving abilities exhibited between them. For you will find the science based articles exhibit a focused "lets get on with it" perspective whereas the non-science based articles (addressing subjects equally amenable to scientific treatment) are less focused exhibiting a "Gee-- what ever can be done about this?", perspective.
The bottom line being that solving these and most of the legal system's other serious problems at the end of the 20th century can be done far more efficiently, and in many cases, only, through the advantage of employing the perspectives and tools of science.
You will notice that the two following articles without a scientific perspective have no references at all to any scientific studies or analysis of any nature although the subject matter literally begs for it. They are:
SPEECH BY JANET RENO.
LAW STUDENTS CAN'T BE TAUGHT ETHICS
In contrast, the three articles with a scientific perspective are:
SCIENCE EXPOSES THE ABSURDITY OF LEGALESE.
LEGAL PROFESSION HAS THE HIGHEST INCIDENCE OF MENTAL PROBLEMS.
A CASE STUDY: UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL PROCESS THROUGH SCIENCE.
This is a page in the Web site entitled LEGAL REFORM THROUGH TRANSFORMING THE DISCIPLINE OF LAW INTO A SCIENCE.