When Descartes is sitting in front of the fire and looking at it, he seems to be in the best possible position for coming to know that theres a fire. However, according to the skeptic, he can’t know any such thing. According to the skeptic, we do not an

When Descartes is sitting in front of the fire and looking at it, he seems to be in the best possible position for coming to know that theres a fire. However, according to the skeptic, he can’t know any such thing.  According to the skeptic, we do not and cannot have knowledge of the external world.  Is the skeptic right about this?  Why or why not? 
To answer these questions, you’ll need to provide and explain the skeptical argument.  You’ll then need to evaluate the argument.  Questions you might consider: Is the requirement on knowledge (For S to know that p, S must know that it’s not the case that P*, where P* is a possible situation in which p is false) correct?  Is Descartes’ interpretation of the requirement on knowledge too stringent?  Is there a weaker way to understand it? [Hint: See Renee Smith’s suggestion concerning justification towards the end of her dialogue.] Can we in fact know that skeptical hypotheses don’t obtain, especially if we adopt a weaker interpretation of the requirement? [ Hint: you might want to consider what our ordinary practices and standards for assessing knowledge claims suggest.]