Can you link to your book? (Sorry, found it, duh!)

I don’t see why the Academics are guilty of cake wanting/eating. It’s a pretty standard assumption in modern science that we have epistemic warrant to make provisional / probabilistic statements about all sorts of non-evident matters.

And I’m still completely unclear on where the Pyrrhonists draw that distinction and why. They sound to me like antirealists in modern philosophy of science when they draw the distinction between observables and non-observables, a distinction that has been soundly rejected on a number of grounds. What’s observable to you may not be to me (especially if you have a microscope or telescope and I don’t). What’s evident to you may not be to me, and so on.