Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Introduction. Against the background of the ongoing fragmentation of science, the changing images of science and scientists in the minds of man and society, discussions around categories with great potential for integrating diverse knowledge are becoming relevant again. These include the concepts of "science" and "law". Purpose. The purpose of this article is to consider the crisis of the previous understanding of the law as a stable causal relationship in the social sciences and humanities. Methodology. The following methods were used: discourse analysis, realistic and nominalistic approaches in philosophy, dialectics, determinism and stochastics in economics, interdisciplinary research, systemic legal and comparative legal approaches, system analysis. Results. The paper presents examples of the gradual disappearance of "laws" from philosophical and economic discourses, despite the previous orientation of social and humanitarian sciences to natural science and exact sciences as "reference". However, the complexity and variability of economic phenomena leads to the destruction of the previous clear functional dependencies. In turn, the ontology of modern economics is beginning to include an increasing use of various narratives. The opposite direction, which contains an attempt to preserve the previous understanding of the "law", is "econometricianism". The main area of use of the "law" remains the legal sciences, but here too the paradox of the "non-legal law" appears. Law, as a historical phenomenon, is directly related to ethical imperatives and the problem of legitimation. Social changes lead to the fact that the scope of "illegal laws" is expanding and threatens the existence of the institution of the state. Conclusion. In conclusion, the kinship of the previous concepts of the "myth" is noted. The topic of law is discussed together with the concept of myth with a social construct, and social reform with myth—making. Humanitarians working in their fields do not discover, but create laws, influencing the forms of society: legal regimes, methods of economic exchange, forms of social communication. Thus, it is productive to shift the focus of the discussion from the laws of the relevant disciplines to the rules of communication of scientists in these disciplines. It is the humanities and social scientists who have a decisive influence on the process of legitimizing new laws, regardless of the personal motives of their own activities.
Orekhovsky et al. (Tue,) studied this question.