It absolutely is. Arguably closer to Capital S Skepticism (e.g. pyrrhonism), but it's still a case of lower case s skepticism. Starting from a position of not

It absolutely is. Arguably closer to Capital S Skepticism (e.g. pyrrhonism), but it's still a case of lower case s skepticism. Starting from a position of not knowing, I have not seen empirical proof of Epstein's existence. I have not met him, I haven't met anyone who has met him, I've only seen things written about him, and regarding things written when I read about things written about the sort of things I know well myself, they're often wrong or incomplete. I don't judge the evidence for his having existed as incontrovertible. I'd say it's probably likely he existed, but I can't prove it. And as a skeptic, I would say of the things I can not prove, that I never left my starting point: I don't know.