What philosophical issue stays with you in daily life?
This topic comes a bit out of the blue. If we put aside ethics and aesthetics, the rest of philosophy tends to be somewhat technical what with epistemology, metaphysics, logic and so on. In ordinary life I have virtually no tendency to speak about such issues with other people, unless they happen to be interested in philosophy, which as some of you may know, is very rare.
Nevertheless, there is one habit from the "technical side" of philosophy that does filter into my daily life which is a bit weird. When someone asks me a question along the lines of "are you sure?" or "are you certain?" I very rarely say "yes". I always reply by saying "I think this is what I saw" or "it's likely", but I cannot for the life of me say "I'm certain" or "I'm sure".
If it weren't for philosophy, this would not be an issue. But given that I've been wrong at times when I thought I was certain and then given the problems associated with testimony, I think I'll be stuck with this.
All this is just a way of asking, what more-or-less technical aspect in philosophy shows up in your personal life?
Nevertheless, there is one habit from the "technical side" of philosophy that does filter into my daily life which is a bit weird. When someone asks me a question along the lines of "are you sure?" or "are you certain?" I very rarely say "yes". I always reply by saying "I think this is what I saw" or "it's likely", but I cannot for the life of me say "I'm certain" or "I'm sure".
If it weren't for philosophy, this would not be an issue. But given that I've been wrong at times when I thought I was certain and then given the problems associated with testimony, I think I'll be stuck with this.
All this is just a way of asking, what more-or-less technical aspect in philosophy shows up in your personal life?
Comments (67)
Just a quick comment and I will probably post a fuller reply later.
The reluctance to say in daily life that one is certain is a sure sign of too much philosophy and overthinking.
,
Two things I guess:
I'm retired now, but I worked as an engineer for 30 years. In that job, the most important decisions I had to make hinged on what I knew, how I knew it, how certain I was, and what would be the consequences if I were wrong. So, I take epistemology very seriously. It's hard to tell which came first, my interest in knowledge or my decision to become an engineer.
Here's a song I sing over and over again. There are many ways of looking at reality. These different views are metaphysical constructs. Metaphysical beliefs are not true or false, they are more or less useful in specific situations. This way of seeing things makes it much easier for me to understand, if not necessarily to agree with, other people's beliefs and values.
I say "I'm confident" instead of "I'm certain" since the latter only applies to deductive proofs. I'm either "fairly confident" or "very confident" or "not at all confident" of some proposition. So I share this quirk too.
The other "technical" quirk that comes up concerns doubts, namely, having or not having grounds to doubt some assertion or interpretation of an experience. Usually comes up when people talk about politics doubting the shitshow for what it is (re: Hanlon's Razor) and making ad hoc unwarranted conspiracy claims instead. Also, pervasive 'intentional agency bias' of folks who insist on 'ghosts' deciding or behind every as-of-yet unexplained event in the forms of "there are no accidents" and "everything happens for a reason" – the folk psychologism of misapplying the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
Our brains jones very hard for pattern, I get it, especially where there isn't one, which is probably an (adaptive hold-over) anti-anxiety defense mechanism. Still, there's a lot of 'seeing-faces-in-clouds' and 'woo-of-the-gaps' and 'conspiracies-under-my-bed-or-in-the-dark' going on which jump out at me daily triggering my epistemological and metaphysical reflexes. I used to drink a lot, now (strong) vapes help maintain my chill. :smirk:
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Yeah, being an engineer would make certainty a big priority. I'd probably freeze and nothing'd get done.
As for metaphysics. There are many ways to define the word and its field of enquiry. So I think your view is perfectly fine. The important thing is what you point out, that it be useful.
It is tough to speak about ghosts if one wants to be as receptive as possible. If one seeks to explain why such things are nonsense, then there is a bunch of evidence one can point to. The other person usually won't buy it.
But what about the grounds of doubt quirk? You tend to be dismissive or skeptical automatically?
As for vaping, me too.
I never understood the idea of dying healthy. :cool:
Not that living well to an old age is bad at all, but a drink or a vape or a cigar, sure man.
As to whether I'm certain the part I just bought for my ac will fix it? No. I think it will. Will everything work out of it doesn't? Yes. I'm certain it will. That has nothing to do with deductive logic.
I didn't have deductive logic in mind. More like general statements and many questions about events and the like. Like a minute ago I saw X walking by or that I just drank some water. I fairly confident but I wouldn't say certain. Things like that. On these matters, I feel oddly wrong saying I'm certain. It's a quirk.
As to questions like "what's the capital of France" or arithmetic, sure.
If I find out Paris is not the capital of France, I'd go crazy.
Will things work out fine? You're certain. I can only hope so. :lol:
But I do say the word "sure" a lot, meaning "indeed", "clearly", etc.
I think you misunderstand what I wrote. I find that people doubt too easily, they are overly suspicious rather than genuinely skeptical. Doubt – skepsis – requires grounds (Witty, Sextus Empiricus) otherwise it's idle (as Peirce says "paper doubt"); without grounds to doubt, tacit belief suffices. I'm only "dismissive" of the unwarranted (Hitchen's Razor).
As for "a drink or a vape, or a cigar", they don't make one unheathly: immoderation and excess in vice destroys health and ages one faster. I do miss my bachannalian youth at times but this more epicurean (late) middle age has suited my health and psyche well enough so far. :cool:
Reason.
That's quite a good distinction of doubt vs genuine skepticism. The doubt always everything is likely the reason for such things as Q or nobody walked on the moon and so on.
It's like everything is meant to be a conspiracy. As for Hitchens razor, whatever problems he may have had post 2000, that is a fine quote.
I'm unclear on what you mean by this.
You are too reasonable or think of reason too highly or what?
But aside from that, my general philosophical principle of “it may be hopeless but I’m trying anyway”, of simultaneous possibility and contingency, which underlies all of my technical philosophy, is something I practice every day, and realize especially in contrast to some very shy, anxious people I know who give up so easily because they think they will probably fail: “if you don’t try then you’ll definitely fail so there’s no reason not to try just in case.”
Zizek's comments on disavowal.
Quoting 180 Proof
Second this general attitude sticking with me.
Quoting Pfhorrest
:up:
"Don't collapse the tradeoff!"
Quoting T Clark
:up:
I'd add making sure a quantity or measurement means what you think it means is also something ever present, for me at least. Did you have that concern too?
It's a bit unsettling to think how much people crave certainty, when it is difficult to achieve. I mean we likely know one or two topics more or less well, everything else is more or less based on our interests in what's going on in the world. But it is impossible to reach such high epistemic criteria (near certainty) on many topics, it would take way too much time.
Interesting attitude of "what do you have to lose". I suppose I have the opposite disposition because most of the time I'm satisfied. But yours is a good view to adopt as it's sensible.
Quoting fdrake
Oh boy :roll:
Those eyes rolling are meant for me, because damn, if we did not adopt the "I know very well but" attitude I don't know how we could survive. I mean the Earth burning, the pandemic, industrial farming, serious tensions in Taiwan and etc. to infinity, makes it very hard to function as person otherwise...
Except when there are serious consequences for being wrong.
Yes. I agree.
I'm not philosophically sophisticated but I am always interested in the reasons people have for holding certain beliefs. I have taken an interest recently in people who hold to atheism with almost zero knowledge of the arguments or understanding of science and epistemology. They are what I call 'practical atheists' they think anything to do with the supernatural (problematic word, I know) is bullshit and so a godless, materialist universe suits their outlook. But it seems to be more of an aesthetic choice than a rational one. It seems to me that some of them would be ripe for conversion if they ever met a competent apologist.
Certainty and truth are constant companions in my conversations with people.
Since it's Kantian, I'll let is slide even if it ethics, as it counts as "technical philosophy". :joke:
Quoting Tom Storm
:up:
Sure. Hardcore atheists can be interesting, if they're not dull philosophically, like Dawkins for me.
I mean yeah they're going to be "materialistic"/scientistic, but outside of the label, I doubt they think a lot about metaphysics, because they figure there's just not much to find out.
Dawkins is the height of sophistication next to some I've met. And I say this as an atheist.
Well, there must be many, many people much worse than him in terms of how they articulate what they believe, never mind the biology.
But in terms of being a public figure, few stand out more. Not saying he's stupid at all, just that he's atheism isn't impressive.
For that you have to go to Russell. Beyond him Hume and Schopenhauer, of course.
I really disagree with this, but it's a metaphysical argument that will not be satisfying to atheists or believers, so I've avoided jumping in the pot.
The whole thing. Your denial that religious sentiment could be more than aesthetics of custom, Dixie or elsewhere.
Thanks for the correction to my assumptions.
That's as good a path as many notable traditions in philosophy. I may be wrong with my assumptions here, but it seems to me that a lot of this ties back to this extremely elusive field which we call "metaphysics".
@T Clark may be right that metaphysics can be thought of as what is useful. I only add that if something is useful then an aspect of your belief must have some tenuous connection to the nature of the world, as in existentialism, Daosim and different traditions say something about the world which is not captured by our physics or other sciences. It just can't be proven.
This of course contradicts in part, Clarks point about metaphysics being neither true nor false. But it rings true to me, though it could be me wanting to believe this.
That's not what I said. I said particular metaphysical concepts can be judged based on their usefulness in particular situations. "Visions of the world" are such metaphysical concepts. It's true, Taoism is a vision of the world and a metaphysical concept, but so are objective reality and the scientific method.
This tangent could go on for a long time and it's off topic. We should leave it here.
Same.
Quoting Manuel
Also same. I find it very hard to say I “believe” something. Rather, I say I “think.” But I’m also really indecisive, so it may just be a personality quirk. I’m usually just too apathetic to make up my mind.
Quoting Manuel
Yep, me too. And to add to @Pfhorrest’s comment, I’m a shy, anxious person, but I don’t give up because I’m afraid of failing. I don’t try because I’m afraid of the anxiety/embarrassment/shame I would experience if I did try.
Quoting 180 Proof
I’m about 1,000 miles North of you in upper Appalachia, and it’s no better. Christianity is always the default assumption, and the first question asked upon discovering someone is an atheist is “then how do you explain [insert version of creation mystery].” It seems most people are just not suited to be able to live with doubt or uncertainty.
Quoting jgill
Yeah, I have hodgepodge nihilistic/existentialistic lifestyle. Also a bit of an hedonist/egoist, in that I try to eliminate whatever causes me distress, and do whatever I want as often as I can, which usually results in other “duties” being neglected.
Would you feel that still if you tried and succeeded? Or only if you failed? Assuming the latter, that’s the point of adopting the “try just in case” attitude: it reframes the failure from something new to feel bad about, to just the already-existing status quo, with nowhere to go but up.
:up:
I mean the "nothing to lose attitude" is great and good and is often sound advice. But if you are fine with how you are, there's nothing wrong with that. One thing is to try to keep improving on certain areas, if one deems it necessary.
But on the other hand - and this has nothing to do with Phorrest - this cultish obsession in our society of improving yourself all the time is kind of obscene. As if people were corporations who have to make more money no matter what.
:up:
Quoting jgill
I strive to do so. 'Epicurean freethinking pragmatist' perhaps describes my philosophical modus vivendi best. Daily doses of blues & jazz and on/offline dialectic also keep up my reveries which fortify the courage to go on (Beckett). Decades on, so far so good.
Sure, I agree. This applies to virtually to everybody. Few people bother to study the underpinnings of belief systems.
No, not really. I’d just be glad to be out of the situation. And my anxiety is geared more to social situations; public speaking, participating in meetings, interviews, etc. So it’s more that I try to avoid jobs that require this type of work. Ironically enough, I’m a social worker. :rofl:
Yeah, it’s kinda weird because the “nothing to lose” attitude is sort of how I keep my anxiety in check. I remind myself that, being a nihilist, none of this shit matters. Also, success to me means happiness, which for me equates to lots of mindless entertainment and self indulgence. I just never really bought into a lot of these unspoken social norms, like making small talk or trying to impress people. I’m much closer to a Diogenes at heart. Something about the idea that our “lesser” or “animalistic” impulses and urges should be suppressed, or things we’re ashamed/embarrassed of never set right with me.
Sure, I'm similar in many respects. It just that if you espouse views like this, people tend to think that you're doing something wrong or are missing out on something or had some trauma, etc., etc.
And that may be true for a lot of people. But not all. If you're happy or content with who you are, I think that's what's important. No one is going to live your life for you.
It’s one of those... what @Gnomon would call “BothAnd”... things. Like my simultaneous optimism and pessimism (success is possible... but so is failure), or my endorsement of joyful passionate sanguine experiential input but also peaceful sober phlegmatic behavioral output. You’re good enough, you don’t have to be more... but you can be more, you’re never just stuck as you are.
I agree. Not sure why you raised the Wisconsin Christian thing with me - I was simply saying that there are also 'Wisconsin atheists'.
This makes sense. It's silly for us to expect most people to live with a need to examine everything in themselves and their world just because we do.
And again, you're view is totally sensible. I'd even say it's pragmatic, in terms of the classical American tradition.
:up: I am a fan of that tradition.
:up:
Than you have excellent taste. Peirce, James and Dewey and all the others of that era are sometimes underrated, there's just a wealth of knowledge to be found in there works. :cool:
Quoting Pinprick
I’ve been a self-proclaimed philosophical (aka, anti-Cartesian-skepticism) skeptic since at least my late teens. Due to feedback from this forum and more so from its predecessor, more recently the term’s been updated to “fallibilist” so as to minimize confusion. Same thing to me. As such, I’ve never had problems in saying “yup, I’m certain” because I’ve always equated it to psychological certainty, this rather than epistemic certainty. The latter is for me cognitive (a certainty justified to the highest degree); the former is a kind of wager that your belief is in fact true despite your inability to evidence the belief’s claim to be epistemically certain.
Just in case it might be of interest: Taking a step back, when I say “I believe X” I see myself as choosing to endow X with the property of being real, this irrespective of the degree of conscious justification I may have for X, if any. So to me it connotes a less stanch position than that of “I think that X”. “I believe X” allows me the leeway of being wrong in what I believe, because beliefs are readily understood to be fallible. “I think that X”, however, is sterner: it to me claims that not only do I believe X but I’ve given this same belief thought wherein I’ve justified its verity to myself. Being wrong in the latter is more embarrassing, because to me it shows that my thought processes are not trustworthy to others or to myself. But “I believe” is more whimsical, so not as embarrassing when what I believe (without much if any conscious consideration) is wrong.
Then, to say “I’m certain that X” is to say that a) I believe that X (i.e., I choose to endow X with the property of being real), which is on its own flimsy, and b) that I wager my belief of X to be in fact true, typically because I find good enough justifications for it to so wager. But it to my mind is never the claim of infallible certainty.
Interesting for me to see others’ takes on this.
------
More in line with the OP, here's a philosophical compulsion I once had in everyday life: Years back, due to my contemplations at the time, I had problems in proclaiming anything to be perfect. As in, a perfect cat, or a more typical "perfect storm". Thought it to be a misapplication of language. Nothing in space and time could be completely without faults, and hence perfect. Much like cognitive objectivity, perfection was for me strictly an abstract ideal to be aspired for that can’t be obtained in anything concrete or spatiotemporal (akin to this Sting lyric: To search for perfection is all very well, but to look for heaven is to live in hell.). Then a former colleague humorously exclaimed that what someone or other did was “better than perfect!”. In its context, it made emotive sense, but at the moment not cognitive sense. Afterwards, I came to the conclusion that it referenced X being better than what was required of it to fully suit its purpose. The person, in other words, outdid themselves. Since then, I’ve become a lot more easygoing in saying of something, “perfect”: as in, the given suits the purpose(s) in question fully; rather than it having obtained a metaphysical status of perfection. So, nowadays, in the right context, I can make sense of things such as perfect cats (cats that completely suit the purposes in question), as well as of cats that are better than perfect (at things like catching mice). :wink:
A short(?) argument for your reading pleasure
Argument A
1. If good justifications exist, Agrippa's trilemma doesn't matter
2. If Agrippa's trilemma doesn't matter, Agrippa's trilemma argument is good
3. If Agrippa's trilemma argument is good, good justifications don't exist
4. If good justifications exist, Agrippa's trilemma argument is good [1, 2 HS]
5. If good justifications exist, good justifications don't exist
6. Good justifications exist [assume for reductio ad absurdum]
7. Good justifications don't exist [5, 6 MP]
8. Good justificiations exist & Good justifications don't exist [6, 7 Conj]
9. Good justifications don't exist [6 - 8 reductio ad absurdum]
Argument B
10. If good justifications don't exist, argument A is not a good justification
11. If argument A is not a good justification, good justifications don't exist (9), is not justified
12. If good justifications don't exist, good justifications don't exist (9), is not justified
13. Good justifications don't exist (9) is not justified [9, 12 MP]
Argument C
14. If good justifications don't exist, Argument B is not a good justification
15. If argument B is not a good justification, good justifications don't exist (9) is not justified is not justified
16. If good justifications don't exist, good justifications don't exist (9) is not justified is not justified
17. Good justifications don't exist (9) is not justified is not justified [9, 16 MP]
.
.
.
18. Good justifications don't exist (9) is not justified is not justified is not justified is not justified...ad infinitum/ad nauseum.
However, look closely at 9. Good justifications don't exist. For me it was a Zen moment?! Mu?!
Another way of looking at it would be,
G = Good justifications exist
19. G -> ~G [3 above]
20. ~G -> G [if ~G is true, there has to be good justifications, the justification for ~G]
21. G -> G [19, 20, HS]
22. ~G v G [21, Imp]
23. G v ~G [22 Comm]
It may seem that the skeptic lost but look cloesely, G v ~G undermines G and ~G but both of them are something someone who believes knowledge is possible would say. The skeptic, true to his beliefs, would say precisely what line 23 says G v ~G.
What then happens is, for every proposition p, p v ~p but ask which is true, p or ~p, and like you, the skeptic will reply, "I'm not sure."
Quoting 180 Proof
Thanks for the info 180 Proof. My views on the matter are that those who think, "there are no accidents" or that "everything happens for a reason" experience certain events tha were favorable/unfavorable to a person. Later on these very events turn out to be precisely what was required for a certain good/bad outcome. The events, disjoint initially, finally begin to make sense at a psychological level. An example would be a person who breaks his leg in a car accident and takes sick leave; the day he misses work, fire guts his office killing everyone inside. This would prompt him to think of his car accident as meant to save him from the blaze.
The Principle Of Sufficeint Reason, on the other hand, is more about physical phenomena. It was never meant for interpretations of causal significance in a psychological context.
Let's examine the story of the person above. Clearly, the leg fracture caused the person to miss work and prevented a fiery death at the office. We can't doubt that. The PSR is applicable in full. Why is it that something seems off when someone comes over to his house and tells him, "everything happens for a reason" or "there are no accidents"? The mistake, to my reckoning, is what's being implied is that the car accident that broke this person's leg was deliberately caused to keep him away from the office that fateful day - the "someone's watching over him" sentiment. A supernatural hand is being suggested if not explicitly stated.
There's more that can be said. I'll wait for your remarks on what I said.
That's quite an argument! I prefer to keep it a bit more simple and simply say that, obvious things aside such as the capital of Italy or math, we rarely get to the point in which we would be justified in saying that have completely certain justification for beliefs. Even if something happened 3 seconds ago. I don't feel comfortable stating such things, though I know it can be silly on occasions.
Quoting Olivier5
Isn't the problem of evil a problem specifically within a theological context? Because it seems to me that if we are going to speak about the problem of evil absent theology, then we have to speak about the problem of good or the problem humor, etc.
I used to think so, but I realized at some point that evil is not just the absence of good, and that there ARE evil behaviors, generally coming from certain (rare) individuals rather than from others. E.g. serial killers; the people at FAUX News, Bashir El Assad.
I suspect us moderns ignoring the problem of what is evil has only helped it make further progress.
Yes. But then I'd say that instead of speaking about evil people, of which we can find quite a few, all of us can do evil things. And evil people can do good things, trivially.
One thing is to say that we don't want these types of behaviors in society, another thing is to say they're a problem, because, why would there not be evil? It's assuming that "good" is something natural or obvious.
Well yes, Rousseau basically assumed that good was natural to men (within limits). And I went along with that in a humanist world view. A bit like Freud after WW1 considered the instinct of death (Thanatos) and not only the instinct of life (libido or Eros), I realized at some point that our human nature do tend to enjoy destruction and inflicting unnecessary pain on others.
Tell that to e.g. Aristotle, Leibniz & Schopenhauer...
Quoting TheMadFool
To start with premise (1), how do you figure its verity? For: If good justifications exist, then Agrippa’s trilemma indeed matters, this because it is of itself concluded from good justifications. And until the trilemma is solved, it presents the fallibly proven truth (fallible because the trilemma can be applied to the trilemma’s own justification) that no infallibly proven truth can be obtained as far as we (fallibly) know. Which, apropos, is the only rational way I can make sense of Nietzsche’s mindset of there being no (infallible) truth.
How are you not here equivocating between good justification (in the sense of beneficial - implicitly given, beneficial to those subjects that utilize it) and perfect justification (in the sense of being completely absent of any actual or potential fault)? For one thing, a good justification is comparative, i.e. can be a better or worse justification relative to other good justifications – and a best justification is always so deemed by comparison to other justifications. On the other hand, a perfect justification, in the sense “perfect” is here used, is superlative rather than comparable, thereby absolute, thereby necessarily infallible.
Quoting TheMadFool
And as a side note: I’m currently quite certain/sure (psychologically) of my position on fallibilism being (fallibly) true. :razz:
:up:
Quoting javra
It is interesting to see how we apply different meanings to the same word. :smile:
I work in an industry where the causes for events remember themselves better than I do. Bracketing that unfolding of the world as determinist or not doesn't capture our distance from it or closeness to it.
We need to perceive as well as we can and that requires analysis and intuition. Whatever proportion is correct for one moment may not be right for another. It is a performance art.
And as Stanislavsky says, An Actor Prepares.
I expect that what people say should be logical. Silly me.
By now, I know better than to point it out to them (heaven forbid pointing out a logical fallacy!). It just makes for such tedious communication ...
Person: "If you agree with a part of the contract, you must agree with the whole contract."
Baker: *sigh* *silence*
I'm a bit unclear on the point you're making. Is it that we have to analyze appropriately certain events? So the argument would be that many people don't analyze events appropriately...
It can be very annoying, especially people who say "that's what I said!": [insert what you said for them]".
Pardon me. I am cryptic by nature and my efforts to improve are in a rudimentary stage.
I meant that there is a sequence of causes that all experience but we understand them from different points of view. Some look at that difference as a departure for skepticism and others see methods of acceptance to what must be. As a matter of daily life, both elements are essential.
So, it is an approach of sufficiency. We must provide in real time what our plans do not.
Yeah, there's a virtually endless variety of perspectives people can take on the very same event or circumstance.
It seems to me that what you are proposing is difficult to train for. Essentially to have better intuition. I wonder how that would work out as a training exercise.
A forensic attitude is always helpful.
Why is the situation the way it is now?
When did the thing I am looking at happen?
Intuition is better at response to a crisis than answering questions.
My argument gets to that part in lines 1 to 4 which basically states that If good justifications exist then, if Agrippa's trilemma doesn't matter then, Agrippa's trilemma matters!
The skeptic, it seems, is in a quandary because the moment he tries to justify his position that knowledge is impossible because of issues with justification, he shoots himself in the foot. The skeptic believes justification is no good. Then the skeptic attempts to justify that but then to do so he assumes justification is good.. Thus, the skeptic contradicts himself: justification is good & justification is no good. More on this later...
However, things don't look so good on the other side as well. To justify that there are good justifications, one has to presuppose there are good justifications. A circulus in probando.
Now, let's look at another way of approaching this issue.
Good justifications exist = G
Agrippa's trilemma matters = A
1. G -> (A & ~A) [that's what you said]
2. G [assume for reductio ad absurdum]
3. A & ~A [1, 2 MP]
Ergo,
4. ~G [2 - 3 reductio ad absurdum] [assume for reductio ad absurdum]
5. ~G -> G [the justification for ~G is a good justification]
6. G [4, 5 MP]
7. G & ~G [4, 6 Conj]
Ergo,
8. G [4 - 7 reductio ad absurdum]
The argument loops:
9. G -> ~G [2 - 4]
10. ~G -> G [4 - 8]
11. G -> G [9 - 10 HS]
12. ~G v G [11 Imp]
13. G v ~G [12 Comm]
13. G v ~G is exactly what skepticism is. A skeptic doesn't commit to either p or ~p for any proposition p. A skeptic would never even dream of saying there are no good justifications - a mistake that I and perhaps you committed.
What exactly has the skeptic achieved here? All fae's done is show that G v ~G and that's precisely what's required to undermine the belief that knowledge is possible, a position that would require G to be true but assuming G to be true leads to the possibility that ~G as in 13. G v ~G. The skeptic's job is done!
Don't want to derail the thread, but this in no way describes Academic skeptics such as Cicero, who committed himself to a multitude of, some would say, very important propositions. And even Pyrrho, founder of Pyrrhonism, committed himself to the proposition that skepticism leads to eudaimonia. Which is to say, something's amiss. For my part, I'll leave it at that.
No True Skeptic...would commit faerself. I'm not sure though.