A good place to start is reading The University of Chicago Law Review’s “Exchange: Empirical Research and the Goals of Legal Scholarship,” volume 69 (1) (2002).
The exchange begins with the Epstein & King article, “The Rules of Inference”(page 1).
It is followed by three critiques, Cross, Heise, & Sisk’s “Above the Rules: A Response to Epstein and King” (page 135), Goldsmith & Vermeule’s “Empirical Methodology and Legal Scholarship” (page 153), and Revesz’s “A Defense of Empirical Legal Scholarship” (page 169).
Epstein & King get the final word with “A Reply” (page 191).
[Note: access to articles limited to Case faculty, students, and staff. If you are wireless or off campus use VPN.]