|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Merge radical skepticism here
The article to be merged here seems to be about the same subject, to wit: "the philosophical position that knowledge is impossible." --TS 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've withdrawn this proposal. Pyrrhonism was a completely agnostic position, disavowing as dogmatic even the statement that all knowledge was impossible. --TS 12:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Both are wrong Tony. A much much much much much better way of looking at what Pyrrhonism/New Academy is and was would be to see it as the use of Epoche from a position of Wu wei. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
pyrrhonian skepticism is a much more radical view than fallibilism. the former says that we might be wrong; the latter that there would be no way of knowing if we were. obviously the skeptical claim is logically stronger.
also, what's with the citation to the 'journal of management research?' surely, better sources could be found ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Blaise Pascal, in the 17th century, devoted some of his arguments to counter the Pyrrhonist sceptics of that day. Some say that Pascal's wager does not make sense without knowing the Pyrrhonist background of that time. I'm just adding this in case someone want to add it to the article. Lehasa (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Criticism of Pyrrhonism?
There seems to be a lack of coverage of views critical of Pyrrhonism here. A quick search for "David Hume on Pyrrhonism" revealed this and this which might be a good start. --BenMcLean (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)