Well, Bill, I think you will allow that even the most hard-boiled skeptic has a viewpoint and generates decisions, considerations, opinions and intentions in order to communicate his skepticism to the world.

And he sees and to some degree understands things in the material space-time continuum, as well as in his own world of ideas. And also views, to some degree, and acts on his views of the opinions and agreements that are formed by others and sent his way through various means.

Yes?

In all this give and take, viewing and opining and intending and communicating, there is an awful lot which the skeptic has no viable explanation for. There is nothing droller, IMHO, than a skeptic saying "I don't think there is such a thing as thought" while carefully avoiding lookjing at what he is doing in the process.

I submit that although that qualitative leap I have often mentioned, between the mechanisms of transmission and the understanding of the viewer, is inescapable, some folks will go to hell and back trying to escape it anyway. That doesn't make their skeptical assertions true or even workable. It makes them look like contortionists.

A