
Abstract: This paper addresses a puzzle about epistemic akrasia.The puzzle can be posed in the form of an inconsistent triad: (1) there can be rational ignorance and error about the requirements of epistemic rationality, and (2) if there can be rational ignorance and error about the requirements of epistemic rationality, then epistemic akrasia is sometimes rational, but (3) epistemic akrasia is always irrational. The proposed solution is to maintain that epistemic akrasia is always irrational and to deny that there can be rational ignorance and error about the requirements of epistemic rationality. The main goal of the paper is to explain, motivate and defend this solution to the puzzle.