Formulating a rational defense of skepticism (a work in progress)

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

................. Technically if you are skeptical about existing that's ok, because in truth a person doe's not exist until another person see's them. It is a way of confirming you are a conscious living being that doe's exist. It's kind of like the old question, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I insist you both be skeptical in an appropriate moderation.

The problem is, we know intuitively that we need to moderate our skepticism. But if we are rational, don't we also need a rational basis to do so?

I can't seem to find a rational basis to moderate skepticism adequately other than just arbitrarily assuming certain things to be beyond skepticism. And that's not rational, it's irrational.