Radical skepticism is a means of probing intuitions
Thinking about radical skepticism is Interesting not because it might be true, but because we can learn about mistaken intuitions. Radical skepticism is false[1] , but naively seems supported by plausible common-sense premisses. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument which can be use to probe the consistency of our assumptions.
Follow-ups
- Determining truth of assumptions makes philosophy hard
- Could this be true of the problems with personal identity
Links:
[1] Chapter 7, Knowledge, Reality, and Value, Micheal Heumuer