Final answer:
While skepticism challenges the concept of knowledge by demanding certainty, knowledge is often based on justified belief rather than incontrovertible proof, indicating that skepticism's strict criteria may be unnecessary for knowing.
Step-by-step explanation:
Yes, I would refute the skepticism by pointing out that knowledge doesn't require absolute certainty, and by showcasing instances where justified true belief is accepted as knowledge.
Philosophical skepticism posits that knowledge is impossible, either globally or locally. However, this strict stance encounters several challenges. For one, the requirement of certainty for knowledge is arguably too stringent. Many forms of knowledge, like procedural or propositional, do not demand certainty but are based on degrees of justification and belief. For example, if you see a bird outside your window and have a good reason to believe it's there, even lacking absolute certainty, you might still claim that you know it's there. This counters the skeptic's argument by highlighting that justification, rather than certainty, suffices for knowledge.
Additionally, standpoint epistemology demonstrates that our social status and roles contribute to our epistemic positions, suggesting that knowledge can be contextual and varied rather than monolithic and contestable through skeptical hypotheses. Hence, while one can appreciate skepticism's role in questioning and refining our understanding of knowledge, it doesn't follow that knowledge is fundamentally unattainable.