First of all, on the basis of philosophy, Dworkin holds the hermeneutic method represented by Gadamer. In Dworkin's view, Hart's descriptive sociology theory is problematic, mainly because he believes that Hart's theory of recognition rules cannot recognize principles, and principles exist objectively (because in my opinion, Dworkin thinks it is difficult to describe the whole legal system with at least the concept of rules, and accurate expression is very important for modern legal philosophy); In other words, Dworkin thinks that Hart's rule theory can't at least solve the problem of "difficult cases", so he puts forward the method of "constructive explanation" to solve the "difficult problems" of law. What is the basis of this constructive explanation? Dworkin believes that * * * knowledge is formed by communication and consultation, which is the so-called "political morality", which is the general introduction and preface of the so-called referee. For this argument, Raz and Shapiro, the representatives of positivism, fought back. Their point of view is that the political morality as the basis of constructive explanation is unreliable at the judicial level, because for difficult cases, the social knowledge that determines the case may simply exist. Even if we can form knowledge through consultation, such consultation itself will not be the way to solve the referee, because the efficiency is too low! Moreover, considering the differences between different types of society and culture, as well as the differences in the rationalization degree of social groups, people need to continue to investigate and consider how effective this theory can be.