As a follower of Skepticism, how would they answer: How can we learn what is true?

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.