Agreed about what the goal of Pyrrhonism was, and about why Hellenism is seeing a revival, though mostly focused on Stoicism.

But nothing you said in this comment addresses my question of just how reasonable the distinction between evident and non-evident matters is.

As for a philosophical view being in line with modern science, I think that’s more consequential then you acknowledge. Take Stoic physics: as you know, I reject the notion of a living cosmos endowed with logos. The consequence of that is that I cannot believe in Stoic providence. That’s a major implication on the ethics.

Your description of the evolution of Pyrrhonism is interesting, but to me sounds very much like it was evolving into a form of Academic Skepticism, if not of downright dogmatism (your example of astrology). Good. But then what remains distinctive of Pyrrhonism?

Lastly, on the difficulties of making Academic Skepticism into a practical philosophy. I’ve thought about it, and I will keep mulling this over. My take so far is that it isn’t meant to be a practical philosophy on par with, say Stoicism or Epicureanism. It is more of a philosophical attitude toward knowledge claims, including ethical claims.

That’s why, I think, Cicero was an eclectic with a strong component of Stoicism.