You might be skeptical of skepticism, but I’m skeptical that the skeptics whose skepticism you’re skeptical of are sufficiently skeptical.
Btw, some typos here:
“Now, personally, I think the question for some sort of robust theoretical account of what “knowledge,” is, as though there is some distinct phenomenon, “knowledge,” awaiting our discovery is a fool’s quest.”
“In addressing the question of whether skepticism Huemer and other critics of skepticism criticize skepticism for being extreme, radical, or whatever else, this often appears plausible for at least three reasons:”
In this article:
You might be skeptical of skepticism, but I’m skeptical that the skeptics whose skepticism you’re skeptical of are sufficiently skeptical.
Btw, some typos here:
“Now, personally, I think the question for some sort of robust theoretical account of what “knowledge,” is, as though there is some distinct phenomenon, “knowledge,” awaiting our discovery is a fool’s quest.”
“In addressing the question of whether skepticism Huemer and other critics of skepticism criticize skepticism for being extreme, radical, or whatever else, this often appears plausible for at least three reasons:”
Fixed. Thanks.
He is wrong about everything
I find it very unlikely I'd agree with Huemer about truth, beauty, reality, etc.
I can do that.