Doug, lots of interesting points! Briefly:

> I’ve seen some writers claim that Pyrrhonism makes science impossible <

It does. Not only all scientific theories, but all non-observables, such as electrons, quarks, etc., are obviously (I think) non-evident.

> There was a large overlap between the ancient Empiric school of medicine <

Yes, but that won’t help. The Medical Empiricists explicitly denied a role of theory in medicine, without which medicine could not be a science.

> It’s difficult to nail down exactly what Academic Skepticism is <

Yes and no. Correct, it began in a way that was essentially indistinguishable from Pyrrhonism and ended in a way that was essentially indistinguishable from Stoicism. But the middle period of Carneades and especially Cicero clearly distinguishes it as a school based on the notion of probabilism. I’ll devote my upcoming sabbatical in ’23 to fleshing out these ideas and hopefully turn them into a book.

> are you sure you want to defend a definition of “dogmatism” that would require arguing that astrology was reasonable and logically and empirically possible such that failure to do so was “dogmatic”? <

I’m not sure why I would be troubled by the example of astrology. Astrology is a set of theoretical statements that are amenable to empirical disconfirmation. And they have, in fact, been discomfirmed. So I’m good with assigning to astrology an infinitesimally low (but non-zero) probability.

> On the issue of making Academic Skepticism a practical philosophy, I think it needs to go back to its Pyrrhonist roots <

Possibly, but at the moment I don’t think so. As I said, more on this during and after my sabbatical…

> thank you for becoming one of my followers on Medium, and thank you for putting the Medium article containing the introduction to “Pyrrho’s Way.” <

Absolutely! Always enjoy your writings.