You are exactly wrong in your careful choice of the word "practising", since the radical scepticism is not what I practise, but is what I [wish to] demonstrate as the logical consequence of the sort of scepticism that is celebrated. In this instance, as most others, the prefix "radical" is a meaningless distinction: e.g: "the radical left". The real worthwhile practise, as PKF notes, is quite the opposite of a paralysing scepticism: a generous anarchism.
> And
> the best answer usually to radical skepticism is not Dr. Johnson's stone
> but merely changing the subject. It is not worth arguing because nothing
> follows from it.
Oh come on... don't take your bat and go home! We'll even let you bat an extra turn! And I promise I won't bad mouth American authors for at least 6 months even if they are compared Chekhov or Tolstoy. ;-)
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/