I've been interested in philosophical skepticism lately as I've just recently learned about the close relationship between certain schools of ancient skepticism and fallibilism, which I'm told is the most common epistemology of modern science. I've also learned about one particular philosopher among the ancient skeptics, Carneades, who originated the modern concept of probability. According to, for instance, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Carneades made use of the concept of probability, or in his tongue to pithanon, as the answer to the common response to skeptics that it is simply impractical to live while denying the existence of knowledge. While neither reason, ideas, nor perception can form the basis of knowledge, they all grant us probabilities that we can use to investigate our other impressions of reason or the senses, at least enough to get along with our practical affairs. Am I paraphrasing his philosophy wrong?
So while I used to see philosophical skepticism as entirely different than scientific skepticism, or our modern scientific worldview in general, now I wonder if they are perhaps much more alike than I realized. Maybe it is simply that the concept of "knowledge" has changed over the centuries. For instance, whereas before maybe knowledge was identical with certainty and absolute truth, and now days our concept of knowledge is so infused with fallibilism and pragmatism, that in the ancient context we would find ourselves far more at home in the skeptic school than in any of the others.
Basically, from the position of modern science, were the ancient skeptics right all along? Would it make sense to begin our epistemology of science with them?