I've heard this described as 'radical skepticism' - ultimately it implies you can't trust the evidence of your own senses, which means in turn you can't trust t

I've heard this described as 'radical skepticism' - ultimately it implies you can't trust the evidence of your own senses, which means in turn you can't trust the information relayed by any device that extends sight or hearing, such as microscopes and telescopes, or the printed word, and so on. It's a bit nonsensical, although not entirely worth rejecting. Looking for self-consistency (a fundamental feature of axiom-based mathematics) and the agreement of multiple lines of inquiry into things like historical events or scientific conclusions is a good idea, and serves to give some confidence that reality is what we perceive it to be. I'm not sure what the opposite of Pyrrhonism is called, but blind faith in the pronouncements of kings and priests was never all that good of an idea, and even one's immediate sensory impressions are not always 100% reliable.