A Counterpoint on Disagreements in Theory. The Blind and Deaf Fugue

What do we mean by “disagreements between legal theorists”? A simple answer: disagreements among legal theorists occur when two (or more) agents have rival theories to explain a matter within the same field —in the specific case, the study of law. One of these cases is the debate between H. Kelsen and H. L. A. Hart. Remember, for example, that Carlos S. Nino tried to explain the differences between the theorists in the frame of legal positivism.
These disagreements, in order to be not trivial, must be in the same heuristic field. It follows indirectly from the condition that the problem does not lie in the disagreements that may exist between legal practitioners or between these and legal theorists.
I assume that the conceptual schemes used by the theorists in the construction of their explanations were seen as static and abstracting from the linguistic dynamics of interaction in language games.