This chapter provides three reasons why legal scholarship should be committed to assumptions that are not necessarily true but can lead to verifiable hypotheses: (1) Without making assumptions, scholars cannot make falsifiable hypotheses and will instead shift to using concepts that try to capture the essence of the law. Hypotheses are rejected if they do not concur with the facts. This is necessary to allow scholars to make statements about the law that are empirically accurate (2) Making assumptions allows scholars to make statements that are intersubjectively verifiable, which means that the personal background of the scholar does not matter and everyone can follow the same methodology to observe the content of the law (3) If people are assumed to be rational or even boundedly rational, the actions of people are assumed to have some connection to their well-being. If nothing is assumed and there is an attempt to check what are the ultimate interests of people, the main justification for letting people make their own choices is eliminated.