What is meant by sceptic? And how far it is possible to push this philosophical principles of doubt and uncert?

Since the advent of modernity, especially the advent of modern philosophy, beginning with Descartes to be a skeptic has meant to be a radical skeptic. This form of skepticism attempts to push the philosophical principles of doubt to the foundations of reality, itself. Now in Descartes case he was seeking to find a firm principle that could not be subject to doubt at all. Of course, we all knew he found his principle, the one principle not subject to doubt, when he claimed: " I think therefore I am, " as the fundamental principle not subject to doubt. Of course, his problem from this point was he hadn't proved, made uncertain, reality itself. He had just justified a from of solipsism, which was not what he set out to do. Descartes famously found the non-doubt-able foundation of reality by a teleological argument for the existence of God. Of course, not many found his non-doubt-able foundations to be that doubt-free.

I, myself, doubt the premises of radical skepticism. Doubt, itself, should be examined, should be subjugated, by itself. To doubt is to raise the question of the legitimacy of doubt in the context it's asked. Why do we doubt? Like everything else doubt needs to answer to the examination of itself.

Via this process of doubting the legitimacy of radical doubt I've arrived at Socratic zeteticism. We must proceed by inquiry, by questioning, but we start from the Socratic confession of ignorance as the starting point of all knowledge. To say, like Socrates did, that I know that I know nothing, is have an open mind, but close, make firm, the fact that there is knowledge. For Socrates didn't say he knew nothing, but he knew he knew nothing. This awareness of knowledge, that there is knowledge, is the true beginning ground of philosophy. We are middle beings; we know enough not be skeptics, but not enough to be dogmatists. Humans have an overwhelming desire to escape the reality of our status. We seek to claim we have absolute knowledge or to claim we can never know any absolutes, that we can never have any knowledge. These are the twin dangers to philosophy, the twin dangers to reason, to embrace a claim of absolute knowledge or to claim no knowledge is possible. Fanaticism is always generated the nearer humans move towards either dogmatism or radical skepticism. The principled application of Socratic zeteticism questions the dogmatists and the radical skeptic alike.

In philosophy, a skeptic is a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs. Hypothetical scepticism is useful in logical works. It enables us to see how far we can get without this or that premise as, for example, when on a research project, it helps to prove (and thus accept) or disprove (and reject) certain hypotheses.

But if one starts with skepticism, it is not possible to get anywhere. We must generally start from a broad acceptance of whatever seems to be knowledge.

Skepticism is the basis of Science.

It is the insistence on proof before a belief is accepted, & a willingness to continuously accept the possibility that your belief may be false.

You can push it all the way to radical skepticism which maintains our absolute inability to know anything.

Socrates embraced this to the extent that he insisted "He KNEW nothing"

However Socrates clearly felt some 'guesses' were better than others, whereas an ABSOLUTE Skeptic would even doubt this.

The Roman Catholic Church has long condemned skepticism as being unchristian. If you doubt that which you cannot measure or observe, then where does God come in? Is he a legend that got a huge following, is his son a god or is he even real?

If doubt is pushed so far, then we find that the Western god (Elohim, Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, God the Father, etc) was made by man, along with his opposite, Baal (Beelzebub) in the dark reaches of pre-history, maybe 5000 BC(E).

For some 1600 years, that Church controlled thought in the West, by threatening all those thinkers with torture, a horrible death of being burned alive, and then dismemberment if they didn't toe the Church's line..

You can push it as far as Descartes did. You know that only you exist. Basically everything else can be doubted. This includes the external world, your own body, and perhaps even a priori truths, such as 2+2=4 (although when you do this it starts to get philosophically hairy. It's debatable whether such truths can be doubted).

A skeptic is someone who keeps asking the question "Could this idea be wrong?"

Religions are based on faith . science is based on disbelief. Popper's scientific method is based on putting forward a possible idea and trying to disprove it. Proving something is supposedly almost impossible but disproving stuff is supposedly easier. Both however in theory may be very difficult.

A skeptic is someone who keeps asking questions even when they think they have all the answers. Someone who doesn't trust stuff because someone says so.

(((Third P)))

"A skeptic is one who doubts, disagrees with generally accepted conclusions in science, philosophy, etc. One who questions the fundamental doctrines of Christianity."

We have the ability to exceed our greatest expectations, all the way to the Throne of the Lord God above. For He is infinite, without boundaries or limitations.

If I had not sought this out for myself, I would still be living under the Law, grounded to this earth for all eternity!

Peace and Blessings!

ok hear ... Slavery isn't a Christian theory, in actuality it has no longer something to do with faith, as you would be able to desire to discover it in each and every faith. human beings those days did no longer see it morally incorrect to enslave different men, and definite u . s . of america ( in basic terms like Australia ) is according to Christian innovations, and that's gonna stay like that. i do no longer comprehend while you're of Islamic faith, yet too many Muslims at the instant question my international places ( Australia ) innovations, and that i'm getting unwell of it. you're able to be chuffed Australia has welcoed you interior the 1st place an embody those new freedoms , somewhat of what occurs - you initiate foul mouthing the country with a view to purpose and unfold your ideologies. in case you do no longer wanna in fantastic condition into the society then leave, you haven't any longer any perfect to purpose to alter something.

great answers,,,,

plus skeptics doubt all knowledge and truth

to proceed further, why do they avoid precipice

or inject large dose of poison instead of the prescribed?

although the severest deny them all

yet they accept some compromises somehow,,,

Funny how they are never skeptical about evolution! Only gullible people believe that stuff.