 Lucullus continues to take aim at the notion of plausibility that features as the sceptics’ criterion for determining what we accept and do (2.32); but he approaches it in a way that might seem to beg the question, asking how the sceptic can maintain a criterion of truth and falsehood if truth and falsehood are indistinguishable (2.33). It seems as if the sceptic could reply that they do not in fact have such a criterion. They do not, unlike their dogmatic opponents, claim to pronounce one thing true, another false. What they can do – what, if they are right, is the most one can do – is identify one thing as plausible, another as implausible.