In this article we start from interpretative rather than as a specific philosophical method as the tool inherent in any human act, especially in the decision-making process. The right means decision-making both in the legislative exercise and in judicial practice. But human interpretation always creates a state of uncertainty, by giving the impression that it is a private act of objectivity, which is more specific to science, which has led to the search for a paradigm in law that is scientific and has often been identified with logical (empicism) positivism. The philosophical perspective we propose is that of analysing the inherent nature of the act of interpretation, since neither the data, nor the subject, nor the science can be reduced to mere data and facts, without taking into account not only the context of justification, but also the context of discovery and the sociological perspective. This is compounded by the new perspectives of neuroscience and cognitive psychology based on the Bayesian inference, which in turn shows how sensory perception is read by the brain from its own cultural and historical context capable of projective thinking. This means that analytical reasoning and deductive and empirical logic are not sufficient to analyse data that are never read in a neutral (raw) way. In conclusion, the best way to avoid uncertainty is not to close the eye to the evidence of interpretation, but to tackle it with tools such as interpretative tools.