There are disputes and in turn doubts about the judge's science; whether in its principle of authority or its exploitation territory or in its meaning and purpose. It seems that significant part of differences is due to the lack of understanding the nature of the judge's science. In the realm of religion and law, what is important is the realization of science. And approximately, if not by research, the purpose of science in above area is not the rational or logic which is concerned in epistemology and philosophy. In the judiciary territory which is a part of law framework to community cohesion, this science can not have other conceptual domains. Knowledge of the judge is the same science that naturally is obtained through conventional methods and in jurisprudence, science that is obtained through conventional methods is certainty normal science. This certainty normal science is the same principles certainty that is distinguished from logical and philosophical certainty. So, judge's science is the same certain normal science. Of course, for many, this science arises in the field of suspicion. And introduced by the interpretations of suspicion lead-knowledge, common knowledge, prevailed suspicion, semi-certainty and etc. But in terms of research, this normal science is the same principles certainty all jurists emphasize the requirement of it in the judge.
)