{"id":3448,"date":"2022-07-19T15:06:00","date_gmt":"2022-07-19T15:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/?post_type=publicacoes&p=3448"},"modified":"2023-09-22T13:41:33","modified_gmt":"2023-09-22T13:41:33","slug":"inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses","status":"publish","type":"publicacoes","link":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/","title":{"rendered":"Inference to the best explanation in legal science; on balancing contrastive hypotheses"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The interference to the best explanation, used so far in the legal domain regarding evidence, and therefore only at the empirical field, is an inferential scheme that might provide a suitable framework for the way normative propositions are (or should be) construed when legal science faces normative scenarios. Accordingly, this chapter explores both how this inference matches the process of cognition underlying those propositions and how legal science benefits from adopting an inference that offers a much more demanding scientific pattern to its practices. All this is particularly developed regarding the normative propositions legal science is supposed to produce regarding balancing discretion. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"imagem-da-publicacao":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/inference-to-te-best.jpg","areas-de-investigacao":"Teoria do Direito","investigador-responsavel":[],"editor-externo":"Mathieu Carpentier","editor":[],"autores-externos":"David Duarte","referencia-biografica":"DUARTE, D. 2022. Inference to the Best Explanation in Legal Science; On Balancing Contrastive Hypotheses. Metatheory of Law: Essays on the Methods of Jurisprudence and Legal Science. Edited by Mathieu Carpentier. New York: Wiley. 329-357.","projeto-a-que-pertence":"Lisbon Legal Theory","selecionar_o_projeto_a_que_pertence":[],"titulo-do-livro-revista":"Metatheory of Law: Essays on the Methods of Jurisprudence and Legal Science","ano":"2022","isbn":"978-1789450743","editora":"Wiley","link-para-download":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1002\/9781394163694.ch13"},"cluster":[34],"categoria-da-publicacao":[24],"grupo-de-investigacao":[13],"class_list":["post-3448","publicacoes","type-publicacoes","status-publish","hentry","cluster-lisbon-legal-theory","categoria-da-publicacao-capitulo-de-livro","grupo-de-investigacao-teoria-e-filosofia-do-direito"],"yoast_head":"\nInference to the best explanation in legal science; on balancing contrastive hypotheses - Lisbon Public Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The interference to the best explanation, used so far in the legal domain regarding evidence, and therefore only at the empirical field, is an inferential scheme that might provide a suitable framework for the way normative propositions are (or should be) construed when legal science faces normative scenarios. Accordingly, this chapter explores both how this inference matches the process of cognition underlying those propositions and how legal science benefits from adopting an inference that offers a much more demanding scientific pattern to its practices. All this is particularly developed regarding the normative propositions legal science is supposed to produce regarding balancing discretion.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Inference to the best explanation in legal science; on balancing contrastive hypotheses - Lisbon Public Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The interference to the best explanation, used so far in the legal domain regarding evidence, and therefore only at the empirical field, is an inferential scheme that might provide a suitable framework for the way normative propositions are (or should be) construed when legal science faces normative scenarios. Accordingly, this chapter explores both how this inference matches the process of cognition underlying those propositions and how legal science benefits from adopting an inference that offers a much more demanding scientific pattern to its practices. All this is particularly developed regarding the normative propositions legal science is supposed to produce regarding balancing discretion.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lisbon Public Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-09-22T13:41:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/\",\"name\":\"Inference to the best explanation in legal science; on balancing contrastive hypotheses - Lisbon Public Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-07-19T15:06:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-09-22T13:41:33+00:00\",\"description\":\"The interference to the best explanation, used so far in the legal domain regarding evidence, and therefore only at the empirical field, is an inferential scheme that might provide a suitable framework for the way normative propositions are (or should be) construed when legal science faces normative scenarios. Accordingly, this chapter explores both how this inference matches the process of cognition underlying those propositions and how legal science benefits from adopting an inference that offers a much more demanding scientific pattern to its practices. All this is particularly developed regarding the normative propositions legal science is supposed to produce regarding balancing discretion.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Publica\u00e7\u00f5es\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Inference to the best explanation in legal science; on balancing contrastive hypotheses\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/\",\"name\":\"Lisbon Public Law\",\"description\":\"Public Law Research Centre in Lisbon\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Lisbon Public Law\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/WhatsApp-Image-2023-06-19-at-11.01.50-1.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/WhatsApp-Image-2023-06-19-at-11.01.50-1.jpeg\",\"width\":354,\"height\":354,\"caption\":\"Lisbon Public Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Inference to the best explanation in legal science; on balancing contrastive hypotheses - Lisbon Public Law","description":"The interference to the best explanation, used so far in the legal domain regarding evidence, and therefore only at the empirical field, is an inferential scheme that might provide a suitable framework for the way normative propositions are (or should be) construed when legal science faces normative scenarios. Accordingly, this chapter explores both how this inference matches the process of cognition underlying those propositions and how legal science benefits from adopting an inference that offers a much more demanding scientific pattern to its practices. All this is particularly developed regarding the normative propositions legal science is supposed to produce regarding balancing discretion.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Inference to the best explanation in legal science; on balancing contrastive hypotheses - Lisbon Public Law","og_description":"The interference to the best explanation, used so far in the legal domain regarding evidence, and therefore only at the empirical field, is an inferential scheme that might provide a suitable framework for the way normative propositions are (or should be) construed when legal science faces normative scenarios. Accordingly, this chapter explores both how this inference matches the process of cognition underlying those propositions and how legal science benefits from adopting an inference that offers a much more demanding scientific pattern to its practices. All this is particularly developed regarding the normative propositions legal science is supposed to produce regarding balancing discretion.","og_url":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/","og_site_name":"Lisbon Public Law","article_modified_time":"2023-09-22T13:41:33+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/","url":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/","name":"Inference to the best explanation in legal science; on balancing contrastive hypotheses - Lisbon Public Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-07-19T15:06:00+00:00","dateModified":"2023-09-22T13:41:33+00:00","description":"The interference to the best explanation, used so far in the legal domain regarding evidence, and therefore only at the empirical field, is an inferential scheme that might provide a suitable framework for the way normative propositions are (or should be) construed when legal science faces normative scenarios. Accordingly, this chapter explores both how this inference matches the process of cognition underlying those propositions and how legal science benefits from adopting an inference that offers a much more demanding scientific pattern to its practices. All this is particularly developed regarding the normative propositions legal science is supposed to produce regarding balancing discretion.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/inference-to-the-best-explanation-in-legal-science-on-balancing-contrastive-hypotheses\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Publica\u00e7\u00f5es","item":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/publicacoes\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Inference to the best explanation in legal science; on balancing contrastive hypotheses"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/","name":"Lisbon Public Law","description":"Public Law Research Centre in Lisbon","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#organization","name":"Lisbon Public Law","url":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/WhatsApp-Image-2023-06-19-at-11.01.50-1.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/WhatsApp-Image-2023-06-19-at-11.01.50-1.jpeg","width":354,"height":354,"caption":"Lisbon Public Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publicacoes\/3448","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publicacoes"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publicacoes"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"cluster","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/cluster?post=3448"},{"taxonomy":"categoria-da-publicacao","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categoria-da-publicacao?post=3448"},{"taxonomy":"grupo-de-investigacao","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lisbonpubliclaw.pt\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/grupo-de-investigacao?post=3448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}