Why have critics argued that skepticism is self-refuting?

Critics have argued that skepticism is self-refuting because any attempt to formulate the position inherently involves making knowledge claims about what is supposedly dubious. By asserting that knowledge is impossible or that all claims are uncertain, the skeptic appears to be making a definitive claim that contradicts their own stance of universal doubt.12

To address this, some skeptics, such as Michel de Montaigne, suggested using nonassertive language to avoid making formal assertions. Similarly, the ancient skeptic Sextus Empiricus likened skepticism to a purge that eliminates itself along with all other dogmatic beliefs. While David Hume acknowledged that skepticism might be self-refuting, he argued that this process is valuable because it effectively undermines dogmatism. Ultimately, the strength of the skeptical position is often viewed not in its logical consistency, but in its role as a tool to challenge and force the reexamination of dogmatic philosophical arguments.1