The skeptic's view is unreasonable. This we know from the start. Why, then, does one examine it? The dogmatist's view represents the limit at which reason has not seriously commenced. The skeptic's view represents the limit beyond which our reasoning cannot go. Between these two views there is room enough for philosophy. The function of the skeptic's view is to pull us as far away from the limit of dogma toward itself; witness Descartes' First Meditation. So it is in our interest to present as powerfully as we can the case of the skeptic, to present his view as a challenge to every step and substep of the argument – in this case, an argument for a traditional theory of group rationality wherein reason is cast in the king's role. The case thus presented, we should know what challenges are to be met, and if we have met them; what problems are to be solved, and if we have solved them. One measure of our success, or near-success, must consist in showing how the view we offer is judicious, balanced, and plausible, while the skeptic's view is not.

I begin by outlining, in section I, the skeptic's notion of the Democratic Councils. Here I portray the essential tension between a scientist's scientific interests and his or her other interests, a tension in which, as the skeptic sees it, the latter interests should not yield to the former.