"In abductive arguments, focus on the inference. When a conclusion relies upon an inference and contains new information not found in the premises, the reasoning is inductive. For example, if premises were established that the defendant slurred his words, stumbled as he walked, and smelled of alcohol, you might reasonably infer the conclusion that the defendant was drunk. This is abductive reasoning. In an abductive argument the conclusion is, at best, probable. The conclusion is not always true when the premises are true. The probability of the conclusion depends on the strength of the inference from the premises. Thus, when dealing with abductive reasoning, pay special attention to the abductive leap or inference, by which the conclusion follows the premises."
My question is abductive reasoning is a fallacy https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/92822/what-is-the-relation-between-abductive-reasoning-and-fallacy so is the whole judiciary also fallacy ?
I have seen lot of people find observations/datas in order to fit the hypothesis or to prove the premises. I think this thing is unscientific. We gather data to find out if we are on the right track, not in order to prove that we are right. The second type of evidence-and-reasoning is that the lawyers in the criminal court engage in, not what academics ought to be doing. Do you agree?