 One of the primary objections to the steadfast view is that ignoring higher-order evidence appears to be blatantly dogmatic: it is hard to see how it could be rational for Aisha to continue believing G with no reduction in confidence, after hearing that her altitude puts her at risk of hypoxia. (Though Tom Kelly has argued [see Kelly 2013, for example] that dogmatism in such cases is not inherently irrational.) Additionally, acting on her belief that G—say, setting off for Hawaii with a plane full of passengers—would be shockingly irresponsible, suggesting that something is wrong with the belief that G. (See Christensen 2010a, for example.)