 Fifthly, according to Haack, the Bayesian theory has it the wrong way round. What matters is not the strength of the fact-finder’s belief itself. The standard of proof should be understood instead in terms of what it is reasonable for the fact-finder to believe in the light of the evidence presented, and this is a matter of the degree to which the belief is warranted by the evidence. Evidence is legally sufficient where it warrants the contested factual claim to the degree required by law. Whether a factual claim is warranted by the evidence turns on how strongly the evidence supports the claim, on how independently secure the evidence is, and on how much of the relevant evidence is available to the fact-finder (that is, the comprehensiveness of the evidence—see further discussion in  section 3.3  below). Haack is against identifying degrees of warrant with mathematical probabilities. Degrees of warrant do not conform to the axioms of the standard probability calculus. For instance, where the evidence is weak, neither p nor not-p may be warranted; in contrast, the probability of p and the probability of not-p must add up to 1. Further, where the probability of p and the probability of q are both less than 1, the probability of p and q, being the product of the probability of p and the probability of q, is less than the probability of either. On the other hand, the degree of warrant for the conjunction of p and q may be higher than the warrant for  either.[20]  (See Haack 2004, 2008a,b, 2012, 2014 for the legal application of her general theory of epistemology. For her general theory of epistemology, see Haack 1993: ch. 4; Haack 2009: ch. 4; Haack 2003: ch. 3.)