 Like Reichenbach, Salmon assigned Bayes’ rule a crucial role in the confirmation of scientific hypotheses, convinced that the hypothetico-deductive (H-D) method dear to logical empiricism “is a gross oversimplification” (1968b [2005: 72]) unable to capture essential aspects of confirmation. His main reason for rejecting the H-D method was its inability to accommodate plausibility judgments, even though many examples from the history of science show that they have entered the choice between alternative hypotheses. It is precisely for that reason, Salmon argued, that many philosophers have denied that plausibility considerations belong to the logic of science, or claimed that they are part of the context of discovery rather than the context of justification. On the contrary, for Salmon plausibility considerations “are pervasive in the sciences; they play a significant—indeed, indispensable—role” (Salmon 1990d [2005: 98]). In particular, they can contribute to fixing the prior probability of hypotheses and hence fit very well in the Bayesian scheme and as such belong in the context of justification. Incidentally, Salmon considered Reichenbach’s distinction between a context of discovery and a context of justification, which a number of authors deem debatable, not only fruitful, but even essential for a proper understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge.