When I was a law student, I took Corporate Finance. My prof was a leader at the time in the Chicago School of Economics applied to law (he was visiting at Northwestern). I had a background in experimental psychology (today it would be called cognitive science). ...

I kept struggling with the Chicago School's rational economic actor. The prof would say X, and I would say "that just isn't what people do in real life". Today, behavioral economics explains why I struggled.

COVID-19 may be revealing another such discontinuity. ...

The scientific method has long been the gold standard. In medicine, it comes through as controlled, randomized trials. But too much focus on that approach can cloud what we see in real life (and instances where such trials are difficult at best). See https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/senior-analyst-salary-SRCH_KO0,14.html

That doesn't mean we abandon one method in favor of another. It does mean we should recognize our knowledge and methods are imperfect.

In law, we tend to rely (overly so) on what we have done in the past as the way forward. "Everyone takes the bar exam." "We have always ...

done X this way." "People do better than tech." The list goes on. We have many excuses for our devotion to past ways. We need to become more open to new ways, if we really want to help our clients.