Witch-hunts are practiced today throughout the world. While prevalent world-wide, hot-spots of current witch-hunting are India, Papua New Guinea, Amazonia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. While an unknown problem in vast parts of the Western populations of the world, body-counts of modern witch-hunts by far exceed those of early-modern witch-hunting.

Philosophy has a long history of seeking Truth (capital T). Most notably skyrocketed by Descartes who was a mathmetician and believed that we can arrive at the Truth of everything like we can with mathematics. If you're really interested in what Pyrrhonism means then I suggest you don't brush it off as "radical skepticism" because that's not what it is nor is it about "trusting evidence" per se. Pyrrhonism is _suspending_ Truth claims due to _lack of sufficient evidence_. It is a direct response to inductive reasoning, which is what most people use every day. Inductive reasoning is the probability of a conclusion being correct is adequate evidence to support the argument. This is the basis for most Philosophical discussions and claims and generally how Truth claims work. However, reasoning isn't "common sense" nor is it something you pick up by skimming a single out-of-context wikipedia page and inductive reasoning is only one of several forms of reasoning. Hume was one of the most prominent philosophers who further expressed the problems of induction most notably the idea that the future will resemble the past. In other words, if I flip a coin 20 times and it lands on heads every time, empirical evidence and inductive inference would tell me that there is a 100% chance that it will land on heads the 21st flip because "every time we flip this coin it lands on heads", but in reality the 21st flip also has a 50% chance of landing on heads, despite the fact that it has been 100% heads in the past. Not to mention, I haven't told you whether or not the coin is rigged, has two heads, etc. The point of Pyrrhonism is that _there is always some unknown unknowns with Truth claims_ so when it is safer to assume a neutral position, do so. This is what it is like to be open-minded. It's not something you can just do without spending time studying logic and reason (fundamentals of philosophy.)

I'm glad to see this has aged well and still provides value. I plan to write V2 sometime in the near future.