Question: **Agrippa's 5 tropes**

1. *Dissent*: For every thesis an anithesis
2. *Relation*: Point of view matters.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Justifications need justifications need justifications ... *ad infinitum*
4. *Axioms*: Assume something to be true *sans* justification.
5. *Circularity*: The conclusion appears in the premises.

3, 4, 5 (above), together, constitute the well-known *Agrippa's trilemma*.

One *seemingly* strong argument against skepticism has been to point out that it's a *peritrope* (self-refuting). However, for it to be so, it *must be a sound argument* and if that's the case the argument that skepticism is a peritrope is itself a peritrope and this further argument I just made is also one ... *ad infinitum*. Skepticism is unsound only if skepticism is sound.

We end in a rather mind-boggling contradiction

1. For skeptics, skepticism is a good argument implies it's a *peritrope*.
2. For dogmatists, skepticism is a *peritrope* implies it's a good argument.

Skepticism → Peritrope → Skepticism → ... ad infinitum/ad nauseum

How do we extricate ourselves from this quagmire?

Answer: 
As of the titular question: No, it is not.

Tim Button has formally shown in his book *The Limits of Realism* that **all famous historical arguments for skepticism are incoherent/self-contradictory**.

For what it's worth, he does show the same for all famous historical arguments for realism, hence the title of the book.
**Agrippa's 5 tropes resoleved**

1. *Dissent*: Trust an other as thyself and you won't need the theses. An other is not an alien or evil, don't be mad in faith.
2. *Relation*: Point of view doesn't matters for alitheya, be at skeptic's point.
3. *Infinite Regress*: Not needed an justification if you are not an other-I.
4. *Axioms*: Art the axioms needed by an action in one place and one time. Axioms are something here and now only, not there and when.
5. *Circularity*: Don't use refers, break the vicious circle.