Attempts at Understanding Fallibilism
Showing only #3042 and its comments.
See full discussionLog 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 tentative in nature. Nothing is obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. It also means that no knowledge is beyond revision, even if it claims to be. 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.
This means that we can't be certain about anything, because we don't have a criterion of truth.
First sentence already implies this.
Some of those ideas are freedom, privacy, and free markets.
Out of scope for fallibilism.
We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.
Out of scope for fallibilism.