Attempts at Understanding Fallibilism
Showing only those parts of the discussion which lead to #2619.
See full discussion·See most recent related ideasLog in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.Fallibilism is the view that there is no criterion to say with certainty what’s true and what’s false. As a result, we inevitably make mistakes and all of our knowledge is tentatively true. Nothing is obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. It also means that no knowledge is beyond revision, even if it asserts itself to be so. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because we don't have a criterion of truth. Knowledge grows by addressing problems in our knowledge. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of those ideas are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.
This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.
Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge is tentatively true…
That isn’t true either.
I had already suggested replacements for the first sentence in both #2374 and #2589. At the time of writing, those ideas have no pending criticisms. You could have safely gone with either one.
Instead, you wrote something different for no apparent reason and introduced a new error in the process.
What are you doing man, come on