 How does this tell against Lucullus’ criticism? It suggests that, rather than plausibility being dependent on truth, we might build a notion of truth upon that of unimpeded plausibility. Take the water case once again. What would it mean to be able to identify as true the impression that ‘this water is healthy’? It could be argued that its truth would be a matter of there being nothing to oppose the impression of plausibility – no ‘defeaters’, as it were. Say, then, that I turn on the radio and hear no news reports pertaining to my water; but being the ultra-cautious type I send the water to a lab for testing. It turns out that the sample is laden with harmful microbes. There is thus something opposing the plausibility of the impression that the water is healthy.