Final answer:
Accepting methodological doubt is the challenge against the skeptic. It uses rigorous scrutiny to potentially strengthen beliefs and includes the idea that certainty isn't required for justified belief.
Step-by-step explanation:
Accepting methodological doubt is accepting the challenge against the skeptic. Methodological doubt entails questioning the certainty of one's knowledge and beliefs, but it does not necessarily lead to rejecting the possibility of knowledge itself.
Philosophers who advocate for methodological doubt aim to build a foundation for certain knowledge by rigorously scrutinizing beliefs, thereby overcoming philosophical skepticism.
This approach involves acknowledging the skeptic's argument that absolute certainty is unattainable through our sensory experiences or logical deductions, while also pointing out that certainty is not a requisite criterion for justified belief.
A more moderate form of skepticism, known as fallibilism, accepts that while our knowledge might be fallible, it is still possible to have reasonable, albeit not infallible, justification for our beliefs.
Philosophical Applications of skepticism encourage a dialectic approach, where beliefs are continuously examined and questioned, refining and possibly reinforcing them. This continuous process of inquiry does not necessarily lead to absolute certainty but to a more robust understanding.
In challenging global skepticism, philosophers suggest that the demand for absolute certainty in justification might be misplaced and that there are other ways to achieve knowledge.
These include practical criteria for belief, coherence with other beliefs, and successful prediction and control in our environment, which can lead to a pragmatic understanding of knowledge.