{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010940919037199124, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.026315789473684, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Legal Probabilism: A Qualified Defence

In this paper we defend legal probabilism. This is the thesis that legal standards of proof are best understood in probabilistic terms. In defending legal probabilism from a variety of objections, we highlight the most plausible forms the thesis can take and appeal to recent work in epistemology to show that the legal probabilist has more flexibility and more resources at her disposal than critics have recognised.