Attempts at Understanding Fallibilism

Showing only those parts of the discussion which lead to #2550 and its comments.

See full discussion·See most recent related ideas
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Zelalem Mekonnen’s avatar
Zelalem MekonnenOP revised 1 day ago·#2539
Show idea #2538Show idea #23719th of 9 versions leading to #2550 (9 total)

Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge contains errors, and that nothing is obviously true but depends on what one understands about reality. 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 which 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.

Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, 6 days ago·#2374

Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge contains errors…

This is a common mischaracterization of fallibilism. It’s actually a form of cynicism. See https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/don-t-take-fallibilism-too-far

In reality, fallibilism is the view that there is no criterion to say with certainty what’s true and what’s false; that, as a result, we inevitably make mistakes; and that some of our knowledge is mistaken at any given time. But not all of it.

Criticism of #2539
Zelalem Mekonnen’s avatar
Zelalem MekonnenOP, revised by Dennis Hackethal about 24 hours ago·#2544
Only version leading to #2550 (3 total)

So there is no way to tell the truth of our knowledge. It may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true.

Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, about 24 hours ago·#2546

You can still tell whether some knowledge is true. You just can’t tell infallibly, ie with absolute certainty. There is a difference between certainty and knowledge.

Criticism of #2544
Zelalem Mekonnen’s avatar
Zelalem MekonnenOP, about 23 hours ago·#2550

If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, than there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew that "that" part of your knowledge was true, but it wasn't true as it turns out after further inquiry.

Criticized4oustanding criticisms
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, about 23 hours ago·#2551

than

Should be ‘then’. I remind you to run your ideas through Grammarly before posting.

Criticism of #2550
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, about 23 hours ago·#2552

… there is no difference between what I said and what you said.

Unclear what “what I said” and “what you said” refer to. Quotes

Criticism of #2550
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, about 23 hours ago·#2553

Since you’re voicing a disagreement, this idea should presumably be marked as a criticism.

Criticism of #2550
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis Hackethal, about 23 hours ago·#2554

"that"

Why is this word in quotes? If you mean to emphasize, use asterisks.

Criticism of #2550