 Smithies (2019) invokes this distinction to a slightly different end. As mentioned above, he argues that we can never be propositionally justified in believing falsehoods about what our evidence supports—so, Aisha is propositionally justified in believing G, and propositionally justified in believing that her evidence supports this. But assuming that Aisha is a normal, non-ideal believer, her own doxastic dispositions won’t be sensitive enough to the evidence to safely track her propositional justification. This means that she can’t be doxastically justified in believing that her evidence supports G. Interestingly, Smithies argues that in this case a non-ideal agent like Aisha should be epistemically akratic; the ideal, non-akratic state isn’t available to her, and an akratic state is, he argues, the best she can do.