> For there is a good argument to the effect that if metaphysical realism is true, then global skepticism is also true, that is, it is possible that all of our

> For there is a good argument to the effect that if metaphysical realism is true, then global skepticism is also true, that is, it is possible that all of our referential beliefs about the world are false. But they're not going to tell us what the argument is. This extremely counter-intuitive claim seems to be the heart of their argument. I suspect they're using sloppy language to confuse the difference between knowledge and certainty, but since they never spell it out I don't know.