 Smithies (2019) also defends the idea that rational thinkers are necessarily capable of knowing their beliefs. His starting point is the claim that Moore-paradoxical beliefs are always irrational. He notes that such beliefs may seem rational if a thinker doesn’t know what they believe: e.g., if someone believes that p but has misleading evidence suggesting that they don’t believe that p. Smithies concludes that, since such beliefs are always irrational, a rational thinker will know all of their beliefs. “Rationality requires knowing what you believe, since otherwise you’re liable to fall into an irrational Moorean predicament” (ibid.: 174). To explain how we are able to know all of our beliefs, he proposes a nonstandard conception of belief: “to believe that p is to be disposed to judge that p when you consciously entertain whether p” (ibid.: 175–6). Given that conception, beliefs are necessarily accessible to the subject, since they consist in dispositions to conscious judgments. This means that a rational thinker who believes that p will have (available) justification for believing that they believe that p.