 Finally, Paul Silva (2017) and Declan Smithies (2019) each argue—though in different ways—that we can resolve the conflict by distinguishing between propositional and doxastic justification. (Also see Ye 2020 for objections to the move to doxastic justification in this context.) Let us consider Silva’s proposal first. An agent like Aisha, he argues, is propositionally justified in believing G, and in believing that her evidence may well not support G. But she cannot come to rationally hold the belief that G: in other words, she cannot be doxastically justified in believing G. Silva’s argument for this claim is in part an inference to the best explanation: although Aisha’s evidence supports G, it seems irrational for Aisha to act on that belief, suggesting that Aisha lacks knowledge of G. If Aisha’s belief is propositionally justified but not known, this in turn suggests that the belief is not doxastically justified. (See also van Wietmarschen 2013 for a similar proposal in the case of peer disagreement. Van Wietmarschen’s argument does not appeal to knowledge; rather, he argues directly that an agent’s belief is not well-grounded, or doxastically justified, if her basis for holding it does not respond to her higher-order evidence.)