“Empiricism” is generally understood as the position that all…

“Empiricism” is generally understood as the position that all…

“Empiricism” is generally understood as the position that all knowledge

is derived from sense experience. “Skepticism” is generally understood as the position that knowledge is unattainable (either with respect to some particular domain, or generally).

In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume starts out sounding like a pretty straightforward empiricist, at least when it comes to any knowledge that we might come to possess about “matters of fact.” By the end of section 4 of the Enquiry, it seems as if Hume is also a skeptic about “matters of fact.”

Is this connection a necessary one? If one is committed to “empiricism,” is the only rationally consistent option to also be committed to “skepticism?”