> One problem with the ethos of the Academic Skepticism of Clitomachus and Carneades is that they denied the possibility of knowledge. … I see the general ethos of Pyrrhonism as one of being skeptical of theories and narratives about how things work and how things are <

Yes, in theory. But as our exchange has shown, in reality some Academics were essentially Pyrrhonists and some Pyrrhonist positions aren’t very far from the Academic stance.

As a modern Skeptic I’d rather work on behalf of Skepticism in general than have fights with other schools about minutiae.

> If I recall correctly, there have been some AI researchers who think that AI doesn’t need and is better off not constrained by the kind of theory/narrative/story-based thinking that humans do. <

Yes, but as a scientist I don’t buy that. Science is not just about predicting and manipulating phenomena, it’s about understanding. Understanding requires theory.

> what if one were to classify the kinds of objections Sextus makes to various claims. Some claims he treats as plausible; others he treats as absurd or impossible <

Another example of his convergence with Skepticism in the broad sense. As an anti-dogmatist he shouldn’t say that something is impossible.

> Diogenes Laertius tells us there were people in antiquity who accused the Pyrrhonists of dogmatism. Sextus had to be aware of those accusations. <

Indeed, more fuel for my contention that we should work toward a Neoskepticism that includes the best insides of both forms of ancient Skepticism.

> While there are indeed not a lot of Pyrrhonists out there, aren’t there even fewer Academic Skeptics? <

Depends. If you are talking about people who go around calling themselves Academic Skeptics, yes. Not even I do that. But if you count the people who practice modern scientific skepticism, which I do, then there actually are a lot. Likely more people than consider themselves Stoics.

> I think it will be difficult to get people interested in practicing Academic Skepticism because unlike what we have of other philosophies it doesn’t have much in the way of spiritual exercises or clear guidance. <

Of course it does. Borrowing from other schools. Cicero endorsed a syncretism of Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism, for instance.

> My observation is that Stoicism is a severely flawed philosophy of life. The flaws affect the practitioners, and these flaws show up in Stoic discussion groups <

I’m not quite as harsh. Stoicism has flaws, but it also offers quite a lot of positive guidance. And for several years in my life I needed that guidance. And I’ve come cross a lot of people who did also.

> I know in the past you’ve been quite the admirer of Epictetus, but to my sensibilities he’s a jerk <

Again, I’m more charitable. The most difficult bits to swallow in Epictetus, such as the notion that we shouldn’t be disturbed when our loved ones day, actually make perfect sense if one accepts Stoic metaphysics and providence. I don’t, however.