Some philosophers have presented arguments that the all-things-considered-better-than relation admits of cycles. The most prominent arguments for this conclusion are spectrum arguments. Whether or not any spectrum arguments are sound is a topic of debate among value theorists. In this paper, I consider whether they are credible or incredible, i.e., whether or not there is anything of a distinctively epistemic character that is wrong with believing all of the premises of a spectrum argument. I focus on one representative spectrum argument, (...) the Pleasure-Sequence Spectrum Argument, or “PSSA,” and argue that whether or not the PSSA is sound, you ought not be such that you believe all of its premises. This particular result supports the general lesson that spectrum arguments are incredible. (shrink)