 As Cuneo sees it, then, when the realist accepts that there is an epistemic fact consisting in your having an (epistemic) reason to believe that p for which evidence is compelling, then that you have this epistemic reason is “not contingent on whether [you] care about believing what is true” (2007: 59). This qualification Cuneo takes to be important for distinguishing between the particular kind of epistemic facts countenanced by the realist as such, from epistemic facts capturing mere hypothetical epistemic imperatives—e.g., “If I want to believe something true about p, then I have a reason to believe what the evidence says about p”—which epistemic error theorists (e.g., Olson 2011, 2014) can accept under the banner of metaepistemological anti-realism.