Search Ideas

I didn’t want to just write what you have suggested, parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing.

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.

I didn’t want to just write what you have suggested, parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing. test edit

I didn’t just want to write what you have suggested, as parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing. test edit

But you didn’t write my suggestions in your own words. You ignored them and instead wrote something else.

You didn’t write my suggestions in your own words. You ignored them and instead wrote something else.

I didn’t just want to write what you have suggested, as parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing.

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

Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge is tentatively true, and 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.

Would be nice highlighting strings matching the query in search results.

As of 2d3d38f, system-generated ideas are excluded from search results. They can be included again by checking a new checkmark in the form.

Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge is tentatively true, and 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 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, 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.

Automatically generated ideas are polluting the search page.

Discussions are getting slower to render as they grow.

If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew some part of your knowledge was true, but it turned out not to be after further inquiry.

Now you’re using the word ‘certain’ with two different meanings, which is confusing. You could replace the second instance, “a certain”, with ‘some’ or just ‘a’.

If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew a certain part of your knowledge was true, but it turned out not to be after further inquiry.

Still, I don’t see why you’d use quotation marks for that. They don’t seem to be scare quotes, and they’re not a literal quote either.

I meant to refer to anything that you know to be true.

Building on #2588, I recommend changing the opening lines of #2539 to something like ‘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 then adjust the rest accordingly.

In that case, I would agree with the second part of #2544 – just because something solves a problem doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to be true, yes – but the first part is still wrong, IMO: “So there is no way to tell the truth of our knowledge.” There is, just not infallibly.

It certainly (pun intended) does not follow that all our knowledge contains errors, as you originally wrote.

To rephrase what you said, you can tell fallibly that some knowledge is true, and what I said was "[i]t may solve a problem, but that doesn't guarantee that it’s true."

… us[ing] terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’ … eliminates the problem of gradation and positive argument, while preserving a shared and otherwise useful set of terminology.

Remembering and using the new meaning would take practice and effort. Why not just go with ‘has pending criticisms’ and ‘has no pending criticisms’ (or ‘problematic’ and ‘unproblematic’ for short)?

[We should continue] to use terms like ‘good’ and ‘hard to vary’ in the sense of ‘not bad’ and ‘not easy to vary’.

There are risks to changing the meaning of established, recognized terms. It could confuse newcomers to this forum who are familiar with Deutsch’s terminology.