Abstract
This article examines the relationship between judicial proof of facts and positivistic explanation in the natural and social sciences. Although these two forms of factual inquiry share evident similarities, it is argued that, on closer analysis, legal fact-finding is not even a proximate model of scientific explanation. Judicial proof more closely resembles clinical deliberations, such as those encountered in a medical context, than classical scientific method. Comparison with clinical practices should therefore promote understanding and serve as a basis for further research, critical appraisal and practical improvement of the processes of judicial proof.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.