Timeline for Can Fallibilism itself be fallible?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8 at 3:24 | answer | added | Alistair Riddoch | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 8 at 0:53 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | There are certain certainties, certain uncertainties, uncertain certainties, and uncertain uncertainties. Also, see Johari Window - very useful. I definitely agree that "there is no conclusive justification and no rational certainty for any of our beliefs or theses" - you can bet your life on that. | |
| Dec 7 at 23:51 | comment | added | armand | This boils down to the fairly common gotcha "how can we know for certain that we can't be certain of anything?". The answer is we can indeed be fairly certain that we can't be absolutely certain of anything, there is no contradiction. | |
| Dec 7 at 21:06 | answer | added | gnosticgnome | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 7 at 18:39 | answer | added | tenebris | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 7 at 18:16 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 7 at 17:31 | answer | added | Dcleve | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 7 at 15:46 | answer | added | Tristan OOF | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Dec 7 at 10:53 | history | bounty started | User198 | ||
| S Dec 7 at 10:53 | history | notice added | User198 | Canonical answer required | |
| Dec 6 at 20:29 | answer | added | User198 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 23, 2019 at 11:54 | comment | added | user20253 | @Conifold - Your 'inductive' version of fallibilism makes sense, but this is not what is described in the question. What is described is a view that is itself fallible. I'd say the reason it is fallible is that it is not true, and so to note the fallibility of fallibilism would be important for a philosopher. , | |
| Jul 22, 2019 at 9:31 | comment | added | Conifold | First, fallible knowledge is still better that no knowledge. Second, the fallibilist thesis, like any skeptical thesis, is not applicable to itself because it is not a universal claim. It is an inductive generalization from past experience. In a more precise form it states "no conclusive justification and no rational certainty for any of our beliefs or theses has been produced so far, or can be plausibly produced by any means currently available". Skeptics are doubters, they react and question what is offered, not offer something of their own for questioning. That is their limited function. | |
| Jul 22, 2019 at 9:24 | comment | added | RaGa__M | @Geoffrey Thomas, thanks for your edits, may I know why it is not "the Fallibilism"? I also didn't want to put "the", in-front , but I assume this is "the only Fallible" theses we currently do have, So why not ''the"? | |
| Jul 22, 2019 at 9:16 | history | edited | Geoffrey Thomas♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
spelling & grammar
|
| Jul 22, 2019 at 8:27 | history | asked | RaGa__M | CC BY-SA 4.0 |