Here is an impressively thorough and fantastically free treatise on the subject of fallibilism: https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallibil/
-
-
For one, none of that is obvious. One can be a Bayesian fallibilist (I might think that’s obvious, but apparenty you may not) but actually none of this is a matter of probability as they think. We should *expect* things to be wrong & that’s not “probable” http://www.bretthall.org/bayesian-epistemology.html …
-
But how does fallibilism go beyond the claim we can be wrong? It doesn’t in one sense. In other: that runs exceedingly deep. For example: the claim that “x is 43% probably wrong” is an *infallibilist* claim. So fallibilism is subtle like that.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Here's another perspective that might help. Only one theory can be true, like true true. This is hidden among an infinity of wrong theories. It's technically correct to say an invented theory has "non zero probability of being wrong" , but it's an astronomical understatement.
-
If that were possible it’d require language to be “true true” such that words infallibly labelled objects in reality with perfect precision. Perfection all the way down, so to speak. And what if a future proof demonstrated how The One True True Theory was impossible in principle?
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's NOT a non-zero probability ( for starters). It is absolute ( a paradox). It eschews probability in ( for example ) in quantum mechanics. It is the philosohical position that Certainty cannot be obtained in context of Infinity. Please error correct.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.