I think that a skeptic would argue that assessing the presuppositions of what is taken to be "truth" might be one way one can gain a better understanding of it. It should serve as warning that the skeptic is a difficult position to fully determine because there is no embrace of full and absolute truth and yet there is no absolute rejection of truth. Both are denied on the grounds that each is a truth in its own sense of being. Rather, the skeptic might analyze many of the assertions named in truths and see where fallacies lie and embrace the idea that truth might be an idea that has yet to exist. If the fundamental premise of skepticism is that there is no absolute and dogmatic truth, then it is important to describe it in a manner where one avoids assigning truth to it. There is much in way of the conditional in Skepticism, suggesting that analysis and questioning end up becoming primary vehicles one takes to understand the nature of what is true and what is not.