Abstract
Much of what Professors Lee Epstein and Gary King say in their article The Rules of Inference is true and good. Indeed, their discussion of research methods provides a very helpful guide for those who produce and consume empirical legal research, both quantitative and qualitative. As they suggest, greater attention to methodology will both inform and enhance a particular research genre - quantitative empirical legal scholarship - that is quickly coming into its own. Unfortunately, to make their point, Epstein and King devote the bulk of their article to an unremitting and excessive attack on the current state of empirical legal research methodology. Although some of their attacks are well aimed, on too many occasions their shots miss the targets they seek. More important, however, is that their assault on legal scholarship violates many of their own rules of inference.