 How can we make sense of Aisha’s situation, in light of this apparent conflict? Lasonen-Aarnio (2014) surveys several possible ways to make room for the conflict within our overall epistemological theory. One strategy we might try is to say that epistemic rules have built-in exceptions for higher-order defeat. That doesn’t solve the problem, Lasonen-Aarnio argues, but just pushes it back: if any rule can be defeated, then so can rules with built-in exceptions. A second strategy is to say that epistemic rules are hierarchical, with some taking precedence over others; but again, the higher-level rules must themselves be defeasible, leading to an infinite hierarchy. The rules must also be ordered by a “meta-rule” which determines which rule governs one’s current situation; what if the meta-rule itself is defeasible? It seems that we are either left with an infinite regress, or that we must accept a stopping point—a rule which itself cannot be rationally defeated. Another strategy is to posit an “Über-rule” which specifies the rational response for each unique situation. This fails, Lasonen-Aarnio argues, because it is too complex for us to grasp, too different from the epistemic rules we ordinarily take ourselves to follow, and endorsing it leaves us with an unsatisfying kind of particularism about rationality. This proposal also runs into the same problem we saw above. If the Über-Rule is always correct, we must say that it cannot be rationally defeated. If we are willing to accept indefeasible rules, why should we think that higher-order defeat happens at all? (Why not just accept the rules governing Aisha’s belief in G as themselves indefeasible by higher-order doubt?) Lasonen-Aarnio concludes that in light of these problems, we should reject higher-order defeat. (See Bradley 2019 for response to Lasonen-Aarnio, and a defense of the Über-rule.)