The literature on evidential reasoning aims to shape the determination of facts within judicial processes. Simply turning attention to successful non-legal disciplines and incorporating relevant insights into legal theories of evidence and judicial practice is insufficient for achieving this goal. It is also necessary to evaluate the type of facts to prove, the roles of applicable legal rules, and to recognize that litigants and judges, acting in an institutional context, may vary in their acumen regarding fact-finding. Minimizing the influence of these factors exposes studies in evidentiary reasoning to a diminished practical impact. This phenomenon is evident in the so-called rationalist conception of evidence. Despite its undeniable contribution to the academic debate in Spanish, it falls short in terms of its judicial influence. To bridge the gap between theory and practice, we identify three obstacle-beliefs that affect its discourse on evidence and must be overcome if the goal is to influence how facts are adjudicated in a real-world judicial system.