Read the text and decide if the following statements are true or false.

In the first half of the nineteenth century, a model of legal education called “legal science” became prominent in American universities. The idea of teaching law as a science was not new in American education. James Kent and Joseph Story, Francis Hilliard and Silas Jones all thought of themselves as approaching law as a science, but what they meant was that law was an outgrowth of the moral sciences. Writers in this school asserted that the study of law represented an extension of the methods and reasoning of scientific investigation and claimed for their project all the promise that model entailed. This “natural legal science” was to be profoundly influential.

      The American model of law as a natural science was quite different from Continental legal science, as well as from the moral scientific tradition. In Europe, faced with the decline in authority of traditional certainties, rationalist writers such as Leibniz and the Port Royal logicians had earlier undertaken their own project of finding a basis for certain knowledge unconnected to religious presuppositions, including an attempt to deduce principles of law by the application of reason to known axioms. Others, such as Locke and Grotius, appealed to the historical legacy of an initial social contract and a secularized natural law derived fro in m reason. In the eighteenth century, positive doctrines of law as a system of artificial arrangements made the efficient accomplishment of social goods the basis for reordering the system of laws in new and allegedly more rational forms. These three broad streams of jurisprudential thinking—rationalism, historicism, and positivism—culminated in the nineteenth century in debates between the historical jurisprudence of Friedrich von Savigny and the German Pandectists, who sought a restored version of the Roman jus compendium; rationalist deductivists such as Christian Wolff; and Napoleonic proposals for codification championed by writers such as Anton Friedrich Justus Thibaut. Each of these approaches contained the claim that they were creating a “science” of law.