radical scepticism

Definition
holds that it is impossible to know anything much at all about the world around you. Dramatic and general in scope, therefore is known as "radical scepticism"

“As it is usually understood in the contemporary debate, radical scepticism is not supposed to be thought of as a philosophical position (i.e. as a stance that someone adopts) as such, but rather it is meant as a challenge which any theorist of knowledge must overcome. ” - Pritchard, Ch. 19, pg. 201

“There are two main components to sceptical arguments as they are usually understood in the contemporary discussion of this topic. The first component concerns what is known as a sceptical hypothesis. A sceptical hypothesis is a scenario in which you are radically deceived about the world and yet your experience of the world is exactly as it would be if you were not radically deceived.”

“The second component of the sceptical argument involves the claim that if we are unable to know the denials of sceptical hypotheses, it follows that we are unable to know very much at all. ”

“We can reject perverse epistemic standards with impunity – it is only the intuitively correct ones that we need to pay serious attention to.” aka, pay no mind to the edgelords

“We can roughly express this sceptical argument in the following way:

1 We are unable to know the denials of sceptical hypotheses. 2 If we are unable to know the denials of sceptical hypotheses, then we are unable to know anything of substance about the world. C We are unable to know anything of substance about the world.”
~ Pritchard, Ch. 19, pg. 155