 Some epistemologists disagree with these lessons, and moreover, with the entire setup of the clock case. One camp of detractors objects to claims  (1),  (2), and  (3)  as set out above. These epistemologists argue that we cannot be rationally uncertain about what our evidence is (as Chloe is) or about what it supports. See, for example, Stalnaker (2009), Smithies (2019: ch. 11), and Skipper (2021). Salow (2018) argues that the conception of evidence required to get the puzzle going can be used to allow “biased inquiry”. Cases like the unmarked clock thus present a choice point for epistemologists who want to accommodate higher-order defeat: accept that such cases are possible and reject Rational Reflection, or reject such cases and adopt a strong transparency requirement about evidence and rationality.