 Defenders would say that Sam could be rational in believing both that Lucy was the thief, and in believing that his evidence doesn’t support that claim. Against this view, Horowitz (2014) maintains that higher-order evidence should affect our first-order attitudes whenever we expect our evidence to be truth-guiding (which rationally we almost always should); the conjunction involved in an akratic belief is thus rationally unstable (Horowitz 2014, p. 740). (See also Lasonen-Aarnio 2020 for the argument that epistemically akratic subjects, while sometimes rational, nonetheless manifest bad dispositions).