I am a XXXXXXXXXXX. A logician, but that's not the word of course, who for thousands of years could not get decent work as a logician until computers came along to follow the rules we invented for them, so that hopefully they might think well. Of course, it's not easy to make something intelligent, and we never said it was.
"Skeptic", in contrast, is a word that has come to mean "doubt", for that was the label applied to it not by it's adherents, but by it's detractors... who claimed and probably believed that the skeptic doubts everything, and that this is their most notable aspect. But the word, "skeptic", has roots in the greek word for "reflection", as in thinking things over and seeking knowledge.
That was the skeptics' word for themselves, a word emblem that questions always beget more question, and the journey toward knowledge is never-ending. And yet the word become name itself instead came to mean "a doubtful person".
No philosopher has ever refuted skepticism's main ideal that nothing is ever known for certain. Physical science has come to this conclusion on it's own in the form of the Uncertainty Principle, and also in Quantum Mechanics, Einstein's protestations notwithstanding. (Einstein - "God does not play dice with the cosmos." Bohr - "Einstein, don't tell God what to do.")
And this was a major let down to many philosophers who to this day have to satisfy themselves with philosophical constructs fortifying why they don't care that nothing is known. They have always sensed a danger, if you believe what the skeptic claims about knowledge, then your knowledge is never complete, not even internally any bit of it, and you will be prone to nihilism, at least eventually as you review and doubt away your beliefs.
If question merely beget more questions, why bother? This question still persists even though in modern time a moments consideration reveals that questions don't yield just questions, they do yield knowledge too. It's just that no amount of knowledge ever exhausts the supply. It's not more odd than the idea that you can go faster and faster but never faster than the speed of light, which is constant. Which is to say, it's very odd, but there you have it.
The skeptic is not personally doubtful... the skeptic is just into learning, a life long learner, someone confident there is always new stuff to learn, and enjoying that perspective. There are always details to learn about things you have a domain around, and also totally new domains that hadn't even occurred to you.
I believe progressives are skeptics, not because skeptics are a progressive force but because skeptical perceptions of reality are finally forming in the public consciousness. This is the source of the "nuance" aka the flippity floppity, "whoa slow him down can't follow him" thing. It does not mean you are doubtful, personally, because the skeptic is merely into reflecting on things, she knows if she likes wine and cheese, in fact, she's in a position to enjoy wine and cheese with Epicurus in the afternoon and geometry with Pythagoras in the Evening because she enjoys ideas.
I don't believe all progressives know they are working for a skeptics' cause. I don't think it's possible to achieve what must happen with only skeptic philosophers working on the project, but I would think that, being a skeptic. Being a skeptic I value contrary perspectives, it's crucial, you couldn't see depth if you didn't have two eyes as a cheap way to at least double your perception and go from two dimension to three. I know a log of dogmatists for the cause and welcome on! But this cause of modern progress of mankind and also ultimately for it's other inhabitants which we may otherwise destroy, is a fundamentally skeptical and philosophical one.