Not really a silly answer, but not what most people will expect.
You can never really know whether you should have done something or not, can you? You never really know if what you post will have its intended effect - in this case, creating humour, or if something completely different will happen. But you actually don't really know if you have even posted what you planned to post. Maybe the response you wanted to type up was "do you mean he is gay?" but instead typed up "That's what she said!" But I digress.
The point is, sceptics are able to cause an infinite regress of problems for the budding philosopher with their argument of infinite regress of justification. Knowledge must be justified by knowledge that must be justified by other knowledge that must be justified by other other knowledge that must be justified by other other knowledge and we see how as this argument approaches infinity the probability that people will lose twenty dollars and my self respect becomes 1. Now this argument becomes somewhat of an annoyance for philosophers, kind of like how missing the bus on a morning where you needed to get to school early because you had a covert meeting with the Head of Covert Covertness in a covert location compromises your covert approach to school and since it’s 2am in the morning, you have to kind of covertly stay in the street without becoming a not-so-covert target for other not-so-covert people or risk going back covertly to your home and covertly sneaking in via a covert entrance in the covert laundry and hide there covertly for another 50 minutes before covertly leaving the covert laundry and covertly making your way back to the bus stop without not-so-covertly attracting the attention of not-so-covert individuals and catching a not-so-covert bus in order to covertly arrive at the covert meeting place and very not-so-convert 50 minutes late and being subsequently not-so-covertly fired by the Head of Covert Covertness is kind of an annoyance to you. But I digress.
Philosophers have tried to break this argument down the way you attempt to break down a clay statue of Florence Nightingale. Covertly. Enter Stage Left: Foundationalism. What foundationalism aims to prove with its foundationalistic views is that there are certain beliefs that are the foundations of any belief structure, just like any stack of tacos must have at the bottom, a taco. These tacos or beliefs that form the foundation of the tower of tacos or the tower of thought are intrinsically true and therefore do not need to be justified. Therefore we can build more tacos on this first taco without justifying why we are building a taco tower in the first place. Therefore, with these ideas at the bottom of our belief structure, we can using these we-don’t-need-to-be-justified ideas and use them to justify our other knowledge claims. Another much-less-covert method that philosophers have tried to discredit the sceptic’s point of view is by attacking the point of view itself, much like how when one decides to attack a building, they attack the building, as opposed to the oak tree standing next to the building and hoping that the building mysteriously had a spiritual link with the tree and spontaneously implodes with guilt and shock. That’d be killing two analogies with one metaphor, though – a mighty clean trick. But I digress.
So what the clever philosophers have done is say in a voice not unlike that of Rosa Luxembourg, ‘You sceptics are inherently contradicting yourself. You say that you can never know anything. But if that were true, you’d know that. And therefore you know something. And therefore you can’t say that you can never know anything. Because you do know something. So there.’
But what I believe is the defining beauty of the sceptic’s argument is that they don’t have to justify their belief with proof. Their belief is inherently justified with the absence of proof. Their response would be replied in a voice not unlike that of Alfred Hugenberg, ‘We can’t know that we don’t know anything. But can you know that you know something? To know that you know something, you have to know that you know that something. But for us to say that we don’t know anything, all we must do is not know. We cannot Know that is true, but we can know that is true. Knowing is different to knowing. To Know is to justify and prove that it is always right. To know is to not justify and prove that it is wrong’. Ok so that last bit wasn’t Hugenberg, it’s what I believe. It’s what I can’t Know but what I think I know. Surely that’s enough to know, even if it isn’t enough to Know.
Appendix – The Sceptic Quiz: How Sceptical are you?
Instructions: Pick the number applies mostly to you. ‘1’ is not applicable and ‘2’ is applicable.
1. When someone makes a knowledge claim, you yell ‘Substantiate that claim infinitely!’
2. You don’t trust anyone that does not provide evidence for their reasoning.
3. You think that the world would function better if everyone were sceptics.
4. When someone tells you they like you, you say ‘Rationally or empirically speaking?’
5. When you tell someone you like them, you expect them to say, ‘I would believe you…but your facial creases are 2.47cm apart when they really should be 2.46 cm if you were serious and also you didn’t seem nervous at all when you talked to me, which would never be the case if you did mean it because you would’ve been so nervous that you would’ve fallen down like a person who has been injected with a nerve paralytic trying to walk a tightrope between two buildings in the city centre of Paris holding a spoon and a fork and balancing a bowl of ‘Just Right’ cereal with 3 bottles of sulfuric acid poured into it by the new more covert recruit who was covertly hired by the Head of Covert Covertness at a covert meeting at a covert place at a covert school at 3am when the initial assassin was fired due to his lack of covertness and who also has much training in preparing professional meals in the kitchens of Guantanamo Bay. But I digress.
6. You think everyone else is a sceptic.
7. You are a sceptic.
If you answered:
Mostly 2s --> You are no sceptic. A true sceptic would’ve been sceptical about the real nature of the test and believed that the questions were hinting toward you picking all 2s. Since you have picked mostly if not all 2s, you fail as a sceptic. You are not sceptical. You will love this entry.
Mostly 1s --> You are a true sceptic, seeing as you doubted the intention of the author and picked the option that didn’t seem like what the author of this quiz wanted you to pick. Since you have ignored that and picked mostly if not all 1s, you pass as a sceptic. You are very sceptical. You will love this entry.
Did I just agglomerate an unpremediated contemplation?