Abstract
The truth of skepticism would be depressing and impractical. Our beliefs would be
groundless, we would know nothing (or almost nothing) about the world around us,
and epistemic success would likely be impossible. But do these negative
consequences have any bearing on the truth of skepticism? According to many
scholars, they do not. The impractical consequences of skepticism are typically
regarded as orthogonal to its truth. For this reason, pragmatic resolutions to
skepticism are regularly dismissed. I will argue, however, that skepticism is
implausible because it is impractical. In particular, skepticism is implausible because
it goes against the point of epistemic evaluation.