[breuleux]

> All skepticisms suffer from the same problem, namely, the strange belief that you can know something while undermining the very conditions possibility of knowing it.

I think these conditions are overstated. The human brain is a paraconsistent reasoning machine: it is made to be robust to inconsistency and contradiction. I think it is obvious that there exist logical contradictions in the belief systems of every human being, and it is equally obvious that we can reason productively in spite of them, so is it really that big of a deal?

It is not clear to me that we ought to believe something merely to avoid an inconsistency. If our common sense is indeed error-ridden, I would argue that it is ultimately better to accept the skeptic position and let our brains deal with the internal inconsistency than to accept a falsehood merely to preserve consistency.