Internalism holds that justification is a matter of internal states, such as beliefs, desires, and intentions. This means that whether or not a belief is justified depends solely on the agent's internal mental states, and not on any external factors.

Externalism holds that justification can depend on factors external to the agent, such as the reliability of the agent's sources of information or the social context in which the belief is held. This means that whether or not a belief is justified can depend on factors that are beyond the agent's control.

Skepticism is the view that we cannot know anything for certain. Skeptics often argue that the senses are unreliable, memory is fallible, and reason is deceptive. These arguments are designed to show that we cannot trust any of our sources of knowledge, and therefore we cannot know anything for certain.

Internalists argue that even if the senses are unreliable, we can still have knowledge by relying on our internal mental states, such as our beliefs, desires, and intentions. This is because internalists hold that justification is a matter of internal states, and therefore whether or not a belief is justified depends solely on the agent's internal mental states.

Externalists argue that even if the senses are unreliable, we can still have knowledge by relying on factors external to the agent, such as the reliability of the agent's sources of information or the social context in which the belief is held. This is because externalists hold that justification can depend on factors external to the agent, and therefore whether or not a belief is justified can depend on factors that are beyond the agent's control.

Internalism has been criticized for being too subjective, too narrow, and too dogmatic. Critics argue that internalism is too subjective because it relies on the agent's internal mental states, which can be difficult to access and evaluate. They also argue that internalism is too narrow because it focuses exclusively on the agent's internal mental states and ignores the role of external factors in justification. Finally, they argue that internalism is too dogmatic because it insists that justification is a matter of internal states, even in cases where it seems clear that external factors are relevant.

Externalism has been criticized for being too objective, too broad, and too relativistic. Critics argue that externalism is too objective because it focuses on external factors in justification, which can be difficult to access and evaluate. They also argue that externalism is too broad because it allows for too many different ways to justify a belief. Finally, they argue that externalism is too relativistic because it allows for the possibility that what is justified for one person may not be justified for another person.

Internalism implies that skepticism is unavoidable because it holds that justification is a matter of internal states. This means that whether or not a belief is justified depends solely on the agent's internal mental states. However, the agent's internal mental states are always subject to error and deception. Therefore, it is always possible that the agent's beliefs are not justified, even if they seem to be. This means that skepticism is unavoidable, because it is always possible that the agent's beliefs are not justified.

Externalism implies that skepticism is false because it holds that justification can depend on factors external to the agent. This means that whether or not a belief is justified can depend on factors that are beyond the agent's control. Therefore, it is possible for the agent to have justified beliefs, even if they are not able to access or evaluate all of the relevant evidence. This means that skepticism is false, because it is possible for the agent to have justified beliefs.

There is no way to avoid skepticism completely. This is because skepticism is a philosophical position that questions the possibility of knowledge. Skeptics argue that we cannot know anything for certain, because our senses, memory, and reason are all fallible. This means that there is always the possibility that we are mistaken, even when we are most certain of something. Therefore, there is no way to avoid skepticism completely.

There is no way to avoid skepticism completely, but there are ways to mitigate it. One way is to be aware of the limits of our knowledge. This means recognizing that we cannot know everything and that there are always things that we do not know. Another way to mitigate skepticism is to be open to new evidence. This means being willing to consider new information and to change our beliefs when the evidence warrants it. Finally, we can mitigate skepticism by being willing to change our beliefs when the evidence warrants it. This means being willing to admit that we were wrong and to change our beliefs accordingly.

One way to respond to the skeptical argument that the senses are unreliable is to argue that we can still have knowledge even if the senses are unreliable. This can be done by appealing to the idea of internalism. Internalism holds that justification is a matter of internal states, such as beliefs, desires, and intentions. This means that whether or not a belief is justified depends solely on the agent's internal mental states, and not on any external factors, such as the reliability of the senses. Therefore, even if the senses are unreliable, we can still have knowledge by relying on our internal mental states.

One way to respond to the skeptical argument that memory is fallible is to argue that we can still have knowledge even if memory is fallible. This can be done by appealing to the idea of externalism. Externalism holds that justification can depend on factors external to the agent, such as the reliability of the agent's sources of information or the social context in which the belief is held. Therefore, even if memory is fallible, we can still have knowledge by relying on external factors.

One way to respond to the skeptical argument that reason is deceptive is to argue that we can still have knowledge even if reason is deceptive. This can be done by appealing to the idea of internalism. Internalism holds that justification is a matter of internal states, such as beliefs, desires, and intentions. This means that whether or not a belief is justified depends solely on the agent's internal mental states, and not on any external factors, such as the reliability of reason. Therefore, even if reason is deceptive, we can still have knowledge by relying on our internal mental states.

One way to respond to the skeptical argument that all of our sources of knowledge are unreliable is to argue that we can still have knowledge even if all of our sources of knowledge are unreliable. This can be done by appealing to the idea of internalism. Internalism holds that justification is a matter of internal states, such as beliefs, desires, and intentions. This means that whether or not a belief is justified depends solely on the agent's internal mental states, and not on any external factors, such as the reliability of our sources of knowledge. Therefore, even if all of our sources of knowledge are unreliable, we can still have knowledge by relying on our internal mental states.