Why do we give Descartes credit with his skepticism when he couldn't even be skeptical of his own conclusion, Cogito Ergo Sum. How do I know that I am thinking?

Why do we give Descartes credit with his skepticism when he couldn't even be skeptical of his own conclusion, Cogito Ergo Sum. How do I know that I am thinking? I need something better for an ontological proof than "just assume it bro cus it appears to you" I think that people assuming that the appearance of their thinking = thinking is one of the worst philosophical mistakes that one can make. You quote Plato with the allegory of the cave. That allegory is him patting himself (and all other "Philosophers") on the back being like "well, if you use dialectics which involves a back and forth between smart people for the purpose of finding truth, than those who have been more rational and dialectical are objectively more fit to rule because the see reality for what it is". This is notably the first written, non-religious justification of authority and hierarchy on the grounds that "the stupid farmers should not rule because they are stupid and don't see reality for what it is" Why should I assume that the appearance of rationality describes reality? Why should I assume that the laws of thought correspond to the material world? I'm tired of listening to folks tell me that we can metaphysical prove Aristotle's the physical existence of the laws of logic (law of identity, law of excluded middle, law of double negation elimination) when it's so bloody easy to find counterexamples. Here's an easy one: "This sentence is false"