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. What would threaten Hartian positivism are discrepancies between the participants, i.e. officials, on the identification of the law.39 33Dwo main strategies, which attempt to take into account theoretical differences, have been developed. They demand either a refinement of the conventional model or its abandonment. 65 This type of disagreement is possible in a positivist framework, because the way in which the words of public servants are used is decisive. They do not object to remedies, but argue over the nature of certain objects that are the subject of a conditional legal declaration. 62 Second, there may be two different channels of communication, one due to the common use of the word and the other to the use by experts, which gives rise to a dispute over the chain of communication to which the concept of law belongs.