What's the chance that the legal system would suddenly become coherent if we replaced all lawyers (and therefore judges) with mathematicians?
But it deals with the largest and messiest possible problem domain: everything humans do.
And a close reading of the law reveals this. In fact, it is often by close readings of the law (and precedent and every other historical quirk) on which controversial and contested decisions are rendered
Which meaning of incoherent are we taking here?
> And a close reading of the law reveals this.
Do go on.
The people who use probability theory to build approximate models of real world events are called statisticians (and those who forget about "approximate" - applied statisticians).
"Law makers" -- I presume you mean legislators -- only control legislation. This is often called "positive law", in that somebody has to take positive action to "make" it where it didn't exist before.
By convention, the common law is considered to be "discovered". It exists independent of men and women, and the role of judges is to determine what it is.
In practice there is a dynamic tension between the evolution of the common law as it finds and adapts to new problems, and the intervention of the legislature when it decides that the law should be something else. Legislation itself quickly accretes case law that decides what the given piece of legislation means.