> Sextus tells us that for Pyrrhonism we should follow the everyday course of life. In the everyday course of life, we don’t concern ourselves with the idea that we’re dreaming. <

Maybe we don’t, but we should. Not necessarily with the radical variety. But nowadays we know enough about fallacies, biases, etc., that we should be concerned with the likelihood of our judgment even, perhaps especially, in everyday life.

> As for the system of belief, few people interested in Stoicism these days seem to go for the full Stoic system. <

That’s an empirical question for which both you and I only have anecdotal evidence. I would be stunned if most people who approach Buddhism are not interested in the four noble truths and the eightfold path.

Regardless, people should be interested. Which is why I write these things. Not many people, as I can see, are interested in Pyrrhonism, and yet you are right about writing about it. People should be interested, but they are guaranteed not to be unless they find modern sources popularizing the philosophy.

> a Neoskepticism that is purely parasitic on the practices of other philosophies seems to me to be of little potential popular appeal. <

“Parasitic” is really a nasty way to put it. I am not claiming any new idea, only an update and refashioning of ancient ones. Modern Stoicism also doesn’t present much in the way of new ideas, and yet.

Moreover, isn’t Pyrrhonism in worse shape? After all, it only suggests to follow local customs, one’s physiological urges and signals, and what one can learn from experts. How is that anything above and beyond what any sensible person has done since the dawn of time?

> The history of the Academy also tells us that the more the Academy embraced eclecticism, the fewer adherents the Academy had, and this eclecticism appears to have been a major factor leading to the dissolution of the Academy. <

Again, two can play that game. Pyrrhonism didn’t last much either…

But that’s not the point. The more I think about it the more I feel inclined to revive the entire skeptical tradition, including both Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism. Not because I think the individual versions of Skepticism are necessarily compatible, but because I think there is much value, especially in these days, in nudging people to be more open minded inquirers, to take what they think they know less dogmatically, and so forth.

Hence also the very important connection to modern scientific skepticism, especially because of all the life threatening nonsense we’ve heard during the pandemic.

Thanks for the Popperian reference. I admire his writing and think he was pivotal in the history of philosophy, but one of the problems with modern scientists is that they far too blindly follow Popperian falsification, apparently unaware that it is a position that philosophers of science have essentially abandoned since the ’70s. See here: https://aeon.co/essays/the-string-theory-wars-show-us-how-science-needs-philosophy