>Radical skepticism has throughout history been
>more often an ally of conservatism rather than radicalism.
Where'd this opposition between "radical skepticism" and personal possession of scientific truth, with no apparent intervening ground, come from? Since when does a bit of doubt - including self-doubt - lead you down the proverbial slippery slope to conformity to the existing order? It's especially odd to see these claims to certainty made in the name of the fellow who wrote that fine letter about the ruthless criticism of all that exists. I'd have thought that one's own habits of thought might be subject to criticism as well as that of those who disagree with you.
Doug