1.

It seems that we must be able to explain human behaviour if we want to influence it

by means of law. How can we explain human behaviour? There are several models of
explanation available. Which one is the most appropriate, and why? These are all very
abstract questions, so let us consider a concrete example to focus our thoughts. 
There is a wide agreement amongst virologists and politicians that in order to limit the spread
of the Corona-virus, people should keep a ‘social distance’ of 1.5 meters. During the summer
of 2020, we all noticed that many people did not respect the rule of social distancing anymore
and many see this as a reason why there was a second wave of Covid-19 infections in the fall
of 2020. 
What explains this lack of observance of social distancing? Distinguish between different
models of explanation.
How could this have been avoided, and what role could the law have played in the prevention
of this disease?
Steps for preparing this task:
List the four different models of explanation that are discussed in Chapter 4 of the handbook.
Which of these four models is most suitable for explaining why people only moderately
respected social distancing? Using this model, try to formulate what facts explain in your
opinion the lack of social distancing. And then, given the identified cause(s) of moderate
compliance, indicate how law might improve the social distancing behaviour.

Mechanistic and purposive understanding

Functional explanation (evolution theory, it can be used to apply the teological style of
thinking also to facts that do not involve actions)
The Nomological-Deductive Model of Explanation (ND)
Teleological explanation-> this is the best model of explanation out of all because it really
tries to see how the human behavior works. As humans, we have a belief-desire model of
motivation, meaning that we desire something, we believe in that something which will fulfill
us and then we take action.
For this Covid situation, I believe that most of the people now desire freedom. To be more
and more free and this restrictive measure just contradicts with their desires and the beliefs
that follow after. Especially, when you impose nowadays, a thing that just doesn’t stick to
people’s desires, of course, people are not going to respect it. It is our mechanism to work.
Even more, people are really individualistic. They love their own space, to do everything by
their own will and the restriction kind of clashes with the individual autonomy principle.
I mean, I think that people know that the restrictions are important but their beliefs are
above everything else.

We still have to explain why the other theories won’t work. The ND one because (you
cannot explain why people want social distancing). For using the ND model it doesn’t
matter whether the law is true or false. A law can be a law if it is proven. Disproving and
approving a negative is impossible.

You cannot disapprove of the existence of Santa Claus.

You can approve the existence of Santa Claus (facts).

Maybe mechanistic understating can work? The psychological understanding doesn’t work
because the facts are real, the covid is real and the social distancing is not a restriction that
can cause cognitive dissonance (when two or more believes are clashing, you are
believing our oldest belief and reject the new ones), or to lack understanding. Functional
explanation is not correct either because it is about people’s action not a natural phenomena.

How can law fix this? How can law improve the social distancing problem?
 You try to influence the desire of people (for example, imposing a fine)
 You can try to induce another belief. You can use laws to influence beliefs but
mostly it is easier to influence desires.

2. Explanation of physical phenomena, such as the expansion of metal bars, seems relatively
easy. Explanation of human behaviour is already more difficult. What about the explanation
of social institutions, such as the existence of law, or European integration? This may be
one of the more difficult kinds of explanation.

What do you think would count as a good scientific explanation of the origin of the European
Union?
Functional theory? -> you cannot explain the origin with the EU with the functional
theory.
B/D method -> it works. Empty chair crisis (the desire changed)

The question is not what the correct explanation is, but what standards for explanation must
be met in order for some theory, whatever its content, to be classified as a serious
explanation? 
Neofunctionalism it can be explained it today by B/D model.
ND method->

And more concrete: do you think that Neofunctionalism and Intergovernmentalism satisfy the
standard for good explanations of social institutions? Why (not)? Scientific theory is scientific
if it can be falsified (Popper)+ talk about that intergovernmentalism can be falsified with the
difference about high and low politics. Intergovernmentalism never tried to falsify the neo-
functionalism. If a theory is too vague, you cannot falsify it so it’s not scientific.
 
Tips:

1. You can reuse the list of four models of explanation that you made for task 2.1.
2. If necessary, you can have another look at task 1.4.
3. Consider that a good explanation does not only explain well, but that it should
also meet the requirements for good science if the explanation is to be scientific.

Serious explanation-scientific explanation

Start with all the models ( with neo-functionalism and intergovernmentalism)

Section 4.3.9 and 4.6 :-> Intergovernmentalism works as a refinement of neofunctionalism.

It can be a spontaneous process of transferring loyalty that can go to a further growth of
functional organizations. But it cannot be done unless the States allow it. They can easily
stop the process. The spontaneous process can take place only within the boundaries
defined by State politics.

EU is not a functional organization but a territorial one. This can falsify the
neofunctionalism because even if EU took a number of tasks from MS, still it is handled by
the States. There is no increase in the number of functional supranational organizations,
but merely a transfer of tasks from one kind of territorial organization to another.

Also page 88

Functional explanation can tell why the EU was formed and why bc it was a social
phenomenon because high politics and low politics etc , but it does not explain how it
become to existence.

The appearance of the intergovernmentalism says that there may be a spontaneous

process, but this is controlled by the state, but it can also stop it (this is how they
complement each other and they can both be considered explanations for development of
the social institutions.)

Task 3
Hardly anybody doubts that physics, including chemistry and astronomy, is a science. There
are not many doubts about biology either. However, is psychology a science? Or what
about sociology, history, philosophy, linguistics, or literature ‘science’? Perhaps the most
controversial case is legal ‘science’. Even lawyers sometimes hesitate to consider the
professional occupation of legal researchers as science, and therefore they speak of
‘jurisprudence’.
What do you think? Is legal ‘science’ a real science? When are you willing to call a discipline
a science? Can there be non-empirical sciences, and if so, what makes them into sciences?
Is it possible to engage in empirical legal research? As you may understand, the answers to
these questions may have an impact on whether the study of law should be an academic
one.
 
Tips:

1. Before you can say anything about the scientific nature of a discipline you need
to be clear on what distinguishes science from non-science.
2. Given the distinction between science and non-science, it is possible to
determine what characteristics legal science should have in order to be a
science. What are these characteristics?
3. It is also necessary to have more information about what legal scientists
precisely do. What kinds of questions do legal scientists answer? Consider the
possibility that there are different kinds of questions that may be asked about
law, and that some kinds of questions are better suited to scientific answers than
other kinds.

Scientific theories are only scientific if they can be falsified. According to Popper,
scientific theories are falsifiable, metaphysical theories are not.

Theory-laden observations-> it is not possible to test a theory in isolation from other

theories. All of the observations are theory-laden, even if we don’t realize.

Characteristics of legal science:

 It must be falsifiable – what is true in this theory

 Sufficiently precise
 Create understanding (explains well the phenomena in question)

Empirical sciences: the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and must be
capable of being verified by other researchers working under the same conditions. Here the
sensory perception plays a central role. All of the five steps of the scientific cycle:

The scientific empirical cycle:

1. Observation
2. Law formulation (theory)
3. Deduction and prediction
4. Observation and testing
5. Evaluation

A priori sciences: in these sciences done before the proceedings of sensory perceptions.
Logical reasoning is a type of a priori sciences  thus, this is the type of science for
philosophy, sociology, history, literature, etc.
Class notes:

Models based on mechanism:

1. ND model have to have an explanation in order to be true. Bounderies for which the
theory must be true. If the law is wrong, you have to amend it.
2. Mechanical (different)
3. B/D model
4. Functional model

Every model has a weakness.

How to prove it-> MIT

Science vs non-science: criteria: IF CAN BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN

Is law a science? It depends.