DEDUCTIONS, INDUCTIONS AND ABDUCTIONS IN PROBATORIAL LEGAL REASONING

Abstract

Evidentiary reasoning is a key element in judicial decision-making, where judges and lawyers must analyze facts through deduction, induction, and abduction. This article explores how these forms of reasoning are applied in law, emphasizing the fundamental role of abduction in reconstructing facts based on circumstantial evidence. Unlike science, where truth is established through experimentation, law must navigate uncertainties and regulatory constraints that shape how facts are determined. In judicial proceedings, especially in criminal law, the standard of proof requires certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when conclusive evidence is lacking, abduction allows for the selection of the most plausible hypothesis based on the available data. This method does not guarantee absolute truth but provides a rational and well-founded explanation. Through examples and a comparative approach, this article invites readers to understand how legal arguments are constructed and highlights the importance of mastering narrative skills in litigation. The ability to formulate convincing hypotheses can make the difference between justice and uncertainty. This article by Dr. García Amado is the result of debates held at the SÍLEX International Congress on Legal Argumentation, which takes place annually in Mexico City in March, as well as at the Summer School on Argumentation and Constitutionalism in Asturias, Spain. These traditions keep legal discourse alive and encourage us, year after year, to continue building knowledge. Such forums give rise to publications like this one, which help us understand the various conceptions of argumentative practice in law.