In a draft article proposed by Professors Peng-Hsiang Wang and Yun-Chien Chang of the Academia Sinica, they attempt to use economic analyses developed by the Law and Economics School in conjunction with traditional legal dogmatic as legal methods, particularly in legal interpretation and application. They believe that two methods can be reconciled and in fact the former may improve upon the traditional mechanical jurisprudence. This article argues that this attempted fusion of the two different approaches is largely misguided. By juxtaposing economic analyses on different legal interpretative “methods”, the authors simply added one more “technique” to a rigid and fragmented methodology represented by the dogmatic without questioning and challenging the inadequate foundation of the latter. This article further proposes an alternative hermeneutic/phenomenological approach, largely based on some of the insights developed by Martin Heidegger, which further demonstrates the fundamental differences and irreconcilability among these three approaches based on their divergent pre-understandings in terms of their different purposes, methods, and outcomes.