 Salmon tackled explanation in a highly original manner which left a most remarkable legacy. He worked intensively on the topic for the last thirty years of his life, refining his approach in response to comments and critiques raised by a number of authors, and shedding new light on various details. At the turn of the Seventies, when Salmon published his groundbreaking paper “Statistical Explanation” (Salmon 1970b [1971]) the literature was dominated by Hempel’s “covering law” model of explanation, which held sway since the Forties, and is often referred to as the received view. Salmon’s motivation for developing an alternative view of explanation stemmed from his dissatisfaction with certain aspects of Hempel’s account. In Four Decades of Scientific Explanation (Salmon 1990a) Salmon discussed a number of counterexamples showing that the requirements Hempel imposed on explanation, and more in particular the requirement of maximal specificity and the requirement of high inductive probability of the explanandum, are neither necessary nor sufficient to identify a tenable account of scientific explanation. In short, Salmon’s discontents focused on the impossibility of explaining low probability events, the secondary role assigned to causality, the thesis of the symmetry between explanation and prediction, the epistemic relativization of statistical explanation, and the insufficient importance ascribed to the notion of relevance.