In many areas of life, from hard science to managing one’s everyday affairs, explanatory considerations help to guide inference. From the fact that some proposition would explain a given phenomenon we infer that the proposition is true. And when several propositions may explain a given phenomenon we infer the one that best explains it. Inferences all share the same structure, typically referred to as “abduction” or “inference to the best explanation.” Because legal proof falls somewhere between science and managing one’s everyday affairs, it should perhaps not be surprising that the juridical proof process involves similar inferential practices. This chapter juxtaposes an explanation-based account of juridical proof against different probability accounts, develops an argument about the descriptive superiority of the explanation-based account over its competitors, and sets forth the theoretical and practical implications of this argument.
