The internal view, discussed briefly at the beginning of this Part (IV), according to which the norms, laws or morals are understood as rules, are deemed not to be able to express anything other than the normative content of a certain rule, which is an observation that is of no real scientific interest for the legal scientist, as the inherent truth value of a normative rule is impossible to ascertain.Accordingly, the material content and intrinsic truth value of a rule, for example, that murder is prohibited, cannot be proved in a scientifically acceptable manner.A rule’s material content can only be checked against reality if one makes this specific rule relative to a specific set of facts, as for instance, whether or not the rule in question is in force in a certain society at a certain time in history - in other words, provides the rule with a real context against which its validity can be checked. Hence, the material content of a rule can never be scientifically demonstrated to be right or wrong, or true or false. Strictly speaking, the rule can only be accepted as being a rule that ought to be obeyed. Conversely, the external view must be understood as being the view taken by legal scientists in order for jurisprudence to constitute a truly scientific view of the law, while the internal view is the view taken by any practitioner of law.To every practicing lawyer the law is a set of rules that must be obeyed, regardless of their scientific lack of a definite truth value, while jurisprudence states true or false and valid or invalid propositions about p a r t i v 284 Internal View - External View, Practical and Theoretical Consequences chap te r 4
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=