 But admitting rational epistemic akrasia in this case incurs a large intuitive cost. As Horowitz (2014) argues, if epistemic akrasia is rational in cases like Aisha’s, then so is bootstrapping: if Aisha finds herself in this situation a number of times in a row, or regarding a number of different beliefs, she can use her first-order beliefs to establish a fantastic track record of success, ultimately dismissing the possibility that she was ever rationally impaired. This reasoning looks absurd—because, presumably, there is a tension between strongly holding a belief while also believing one’s evidence doesn’t support it. So why allow this tension in even one case? Horowitz also illustrates other examples of irrational reasoning and action that seem warranted by epistemic akrasia; see also Brown 2018, Littlejohn 2018, and Silva 2018 for further discussion of intuitively irrational reasoning and action licensed by epistemic akrasia in these cases, as well as Feldman 2005 for an earlier rejection of epistemic akrasia in similar circumstances.