 Independence principles say, roughly, that higher-order evidence calls for us to set aside some of our evidence, and not rely on it in our reasoning. This thought is required to rule out the kind of dogmatic response to higher-order evidence discussed above: if we did not have to set aside our first-order evidence and reasoning, it would be rational to rely on it to dismiss any higher-order doubt. Independence raises a number of questions. How can it be rational to ignore evidence? What, exactly, do we have to ignore? And does Independence open the door to skepticism?