 This way of understanding the nature of (scientific) explanation does not mention causation and is compatible with a Humean understanding of laws of nature, for example one that takes laws of nature to be truths that belong to any deductive system that best balances simplicity and fit with the facts. In this sense, understanding explanation in deductive-nomological terms can easily be combined with an antirealism about such explanations, if the notions of best balance, simplicity, and/or fit with the facts are understood partly in terms of how we think or communicate (see  §5).  Or the account can be understood as realist in nature, if, for example, one’s preferred account of the nature of laws of nature is in turn realist (those proposed by Armstrong 1983, Dretske 1977, and Tooley 1977 being one example).