The legal system in both the United States and Europe, in both common law and civil law countries, is often criticized as needing to be more 'scientific' regarding factual inquiry, empiricism, technology and scientific principles.' Although these concerns-cum-criticisms may be overstated,2 they contain a substantial kernel of truth: courts can render disparate outcomes in seemingly similar disputes involving similar products, processes, procedures, conduct, and injury.3 Legislation may be contradictory, as may executive orders or administrative agency decisions. Some of this is, of course, the natural result of the different contexts and decision makers as well as different trial settings and (in the United States) use of lay juries. But in adjudication, judges dealing with the same activities, laws, public policy, or contract language often reach disparate results that suggest undue inconsistency and unpredictability in the law.