07 Feb '16 16:38>1 edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism
From the first cited wiki page: “Advocates of fallibilism, though, point out that while it is indeed correct that a theory cannot be proven universally true, it can be proven false (test method) or it can be deemed unnecessary (Occam's razor). Thus, conjectural theories can be held as long as they have not been refuted.” [My bold]
From the 2nd wiki page: “Unlike skepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge; we need not have logically conclusive justifications for what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true (such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty, even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the Münchhausen trilemma.”
My personal interest relates to the Pyrrhonian “skeptics”, but fallibilism seems to me to be somehow right (at least outside of math and deductive logic).
Given recent epistemological discussions—and disagreements about what can properly be claimed as “truth” or “knowledge”, I wondered what others think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism
From the first cited wiki page: “Advocates of fallibilism, though, point out that while it is indeed correct that a theory cannot be proven universally true, it can be proven false (test method) or it can be deemed unnecessary (Occam's razor). Thus, conjectural theories can be held as long as they have not been refuted.” [My bold]
From the 2nd wiki page: “Unlike skepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge; we need not have logically conclusive justifications for what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true (such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty, even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the Münchhausen trilemma.”
My personal interest relates to the Pyrrhonian “skeptics”, but fallibilism seems to me to be somehow right (at least outside of math and deductive logic).
Given recent epistemological discussions—and disagreements about what can properly be claimed as “truth” or “knowledge”, I wondered what others think.