In this chapter, Michael Blome-Tillmann argues that embracing a knowledge-first approach can help to resolve important epistemological problems in legal philosophy. Blome-Tillmann takes, as a starting point, a puzzle arising from the evidential standard Preponderance of the Evidence and its application in civil procedure. The evidential standard captured by Preponderance of the Evidence is usually glossed as ‘greater than 0.5 given the admissible evidence’. But this characterization generates puzzles, where our intuitions about whether a defendant should be found liable diverge in case pairs where the evidential probability captured this way is the same. Blome-Tillmann argues that the tension generated by such puzzles can be resolved fairly straightforwardly within a knowledge-first framework.