Okay, this might seem incredibly stupid, but I’ve been thinking about it recently - isn’t epistemic skepticism consistent?
What I mean by this is that the number one charge against ES (epistemic skepticism) is that if you can’t know anything, then it’s contradictory to know that you can’t know anything.
But isn’t that consistent? If you couldn’t know anything then you couldn’t be certain that you didn’t know everything, which is what the contradiction leads to…
Still, it’s a pretty glarying contradiction…
What do others think?