The Nature of Scepticism

Yes, I am saying Truth, which infers the Ideal.I also realize that you are trying to mock Truth by ignoring its definition.Truth is that which corresponds, directly and one-to-one with what actually Exists.Truth is congruent with Reality, and is born in the wake of the every unfolding Reality which is on-going.
It is similar to History, but it is congruent with the factual reality.The truth to which you refer is inside men's mind, and competes with the perceptions and lies and illusions therein.
But nevertheless, it is the measure of their Intelligence as can be seen by the number of correct answers on IQ tests.

The one defining thing about skeptism is the fence that one is standing on, having neither fallen off to the one side of an issue or the other.It is the definition of open mindedness but unqualified as to the extent one demands more evidence, in some particular case or another.NOTHING can be proven to you or I, unless we have already agreed upon some particular discipline in advance, like Mathematics, Geometry, Empiricism, etc,...We each reserve the right to be unconvinced and insist that nothing at all has been proven to us, personally.This makes us all skeptics to some extent, measurable by the weight of the evidence it takes to convince us otherwise.Then, there are the fundamentalists, like the Athesits and the Creationists, for example, who from the start are bias, and intend to so remain.

The missing postulate to this claim is that the supposed "sceptic" must already have agreed to some particular discipline of general knowledge, wherein whatever will be brought forth as "evidence" has already been established therein.I can not use mathematics to convince a person of certain Facts if that person can not count.I can not indisputably argue that two triangles are congruent unless one has already reasoned with me in elementary Euclidean Geometry.

The knowledge is not axiomatic, but the field of the inquiry that presents a fact as knowledge is always axiomatic.All knowledge is contingent upon the axiom(s) inherent in the particular discipline wherein there is evidence to support that knowledge.For instance, the evidence of an Algebraic solution depends upon the Twelve Field POSTULATES.The eight basic axioms of Geometry must be agreed to as, assumed they are true, before the Proof of a geometric fact (knowledge) can be established.

Whether one knows what is true or not is irrelevent to the existence of Truth.Truth exists in the absence of man, himself.Truth is the Ideal which corresponds to what is real and actually exists.
Truth is the son of the ever unfolding next Frame of Reality that sires that truth is its wake.

Right.And all this you ask for was resolved when the Scientific Method was devised in the 18th century.
Scientists thens began gathering facts about Reality which everyone (willing to set up the exact same laboratory conditions) would observe.

We gather the evidence in order to describe the ever unfolding Reality and avoid the insanity of living in some fantasy based upon ideas that are not true.

The Father of modern Philosophy, Rene Descartes said yes.He accepted the one axiom that he existed, then used his seven senses to verify the existence of other things.
This was the essence of the Scientific Method we use today.

I know.
And look at what has happened to their church attendance.
They have buil a fantasy world inside their congregations that requires their members to argue and support lies.This is compounded by the hypocrisy of preaching self control over one's sexual behavior and urges, (as evidenced within the RCC, but equally as wide spread in every religious group including the Rabbi and minsiters of the denominatioinal Protestants, they attack the very science that coukd support their medieval bible teachings simply because their loyalty to their oparticukar Faith has always taught Genesis that way).The saving grace of the church lies in it long history of Charity, and they better build upon that record by establishing a rational and sane relationship with Science and academic facts.

1) We need to more clearly recognize that an axiom is something that can not be proven, and some people (as you mentioned above) might refuse to accept that axiom as valid.We see this with the YECs who refuse to accept the science Axiom of a First Cause.
Hence, YECs can and do deny Science the foundation for its claim of natural Cause and Effect in every case.They are then able to assert supernatural "causes," always challenging Science on the singular example of the old "Chicken and the Egg" conundrum about the First Cause.With that clear, we can understand that a Postulate or an Axiom is always constructed and inherent in every academic discipline.Therefore, in every case, an initial agreement is always required of the one side by those people who intend to use arguments based upon the disciplines to which they will refer as their proofs and evidence.2) Though each discipline of academics sets forth its own initial postulates, I do think they are all founded upon the singular observation of Descartes.Essentially, Descartes was saying that, he would rely upon his seven senses as sources of external information which created ideas inside his head, but not original to himself.
He was forced by his own axiom to concede that some external OTHER source also thinks, exists.He saw the incoming signals as thoughts (messages) reaching into his mind.
But they were not in themselves sourced by his own mind.Essentially, Descartes was recognizing "The Other." (Jean Paul Sartre: "Existentialism )He was asserting that he was not alone, as he previously had axiomatically claimed.
He was recognizing that "other" entity that, through these incoming bits of information, said to him, "I am."
He was recognizing that he was inside, like in a fenced garden, (Eden?), and Reality, that Other thing which he now could prove (to himself) did exist too.Descartes had said, "I think, hence I exist."
But thereafter, from that axiom, it followed that thinking was coming unbidden from some other source that he had to acknowledge for the same reason: "'It' thinks inside my head, so it also exists," (that other external reality).3) Of course, I have no evidence that he did this because the Church reacted to his publishing of the book, "The Rules of the Mind" by buying up every single copy Rene had managed to publish on his own.I suspect that the Vatican might some day agree wit me on this and release those writings, but it is certain that if I am saying what Rene said, they would have silenced him thereafter had he not died from exhaustion in his service to the Queen, Catherine.

You are trying to confuse the existence of Truth with the ability for man to model it.

It mattered to Neanderthal man who went extinct because of his inability to see the Truth.
That prevented him from adapting to the changing environment.It matters to us now, too.
As we rise in numbers and misuse the resources on Earth to over capacity, a massive avalanche of evolutionary change is building up and a New Heaven and New Earth is about to slide down in place of the false world view we are still living inside: If man does not start to model the Truth that exists in spite of his ignorance, the Facts-of-Life will matter very very much.

Usually when in the course of scientific investigation we find the paradox of conflicting theories, we return to those axioms which were assumed true, and revise, alter, change, or study them with the suspicion that one or he other, or both are actually not true at all.An example would be the idea that Euclidean Geometry explains the real world.
The Reality is that Euclidean Geometry explains only the macro-cosmos which is on a level of understanding different from the Space/Time relative to us otherwise, and elsewhere.In that domain, Reinmann Geometry reigns over what we can discover about Reality in that dimension. And, of course, these facts of life are just what Reality actual is.
Take it or leave it.

Cause and Effect is the major axiom isn't it?Our theories are all based upon the axiom that there is always a Cause for every effect.But, before that axiom, the "excuse" that a First Cause be Postualted, (axiom), and agreed to as an exception is required.

You donot seemto know what an axiom is.An axiom is something which seems true but has never been proven, and appears unprovable.So people can agree to accept that unproven idea as the basis for developing other ideas which WOULD be true if and only if the prime axioms are ACTUALLY true.When you digest that definition, you will be able to see how it could turn out that the initial belief in that basic axiom was misplaced.An excellent example is Ptolemy's explanation for the Solar System, based upon the false Axiom that the sun rotated around the earth.
He logically and mathematically described all the movements.
His Model of the Solar System was used for almost 2000 years.But Galileo demonstrated the axiom was false.