 Another challenge for reliabilism comes from the phenomenon of epistemic defeat. Consider a case where an agent reliably forms a belief that \(p\) at some initial time, and later receives some evidence (perhaps misleading evidence) indicating that \(p\) is false. For example, suppose Alice looks at a red vase in good lighting conditions, and forms the belief that the vase is red. A friend comes along and tells her that she is actually looking at a white vase illuminated by red lights. It seems that the receipt of this testimony renders her belief unjustified, even though it was originally formed via a reliable process. Can reliabilists accommodate this verdict?