2. I understand "false" here to mean that a theory is false if any part of it is false, since a theory is referenced as a whole to explain the mechanisms behind some observed phenomenon.
-
-
Fallibilism is fallible. It doesn’t rule out foundationalism (the concern for “axioms” you’re expressing) but, FWIW, many of us are also anti-foundationalist. Again, this is subtle, but many of us are interested in *fundamental* theories yet we reject foundationalism.
-
(The difference is: focus on problems & solutions or a focus on starting points (axioms, etc). Fallibilism isn’t a foundation. It’s a critique of infallibilism/dogmatism/authoritarianism/etc. A 3rd plank in this is rejecting justificationism; also a consequence of Fallibilism).
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 8 more replies
-
-
-
Meta criticism for the win.
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.