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.
-
-
Replying to @ToKTeacher @Plinz and
(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).
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @ToKTeacher @EvanOLeary and
Is the mixing of normative (eg anti authoritarian) and epistemological claims part of your philosophy or just part of a social club you have built around a shared interest in critical inquiry?
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @EvanOLeary and
Not sure I understand. But the assumption epistemological categories aren’t normative isn’t right. We should reject authority, but that’s because of rules in actual epistemology. Namely: there are no authorities in the quest for knowledge so reject claims made on that basis.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ToKTeacher @Plinz and
An important part of this is conjecture about the mechanism of progress. Namely, when progress is/was made, it had nothing to do with the existence of falliblists. It is/was always due to an approach that searches for errors and tries to correct them regardless what ppl believed.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @pmathies @ToKTeacher and
So it doesn’t matter what this “community” of “critical rationalists” believe necessarily. I have an interest (that I believe many here share) in describing the phenomenon of epistemological (also moral) progress and “critical rationalism” figures in the best explanation of that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pmathies @ToKTeacher and
In other words, critical rationalism is a universal theory of knowledge. It describes the evolution of explanatory knowledge by humankind, regardless of awareness of the theory, and it describes the evolution of non-explanatory knowledge such as that encoded in genes.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DoqxaScott @pmathies and
Brett Hall Retweeted Hermes of Reason
I also assume none of us actually *believe* critical rationalism, either. See eg:https://twitter.com/hermesofreason/status/1114654012307955712?s=21 …
Brett Hall added,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ToKTeacher @DoqxaScott and
A belief is something like a presumption of truth. Hard to reconcile that with falliblism. And yet I struggle to not use the word “belief” in conversations.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pmathies @ToKTeacher and
Belief/believe differs in meaning in small buy important ways, and it isn't always clear what someone means when they use it. I agree though, it is very difficult to do away with it all together. It can mean: I guess, I have good reasons for knowing, I have faith, they claim, ...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Perhaps we can use “faith” to describe a statement with a truth value that is decided upstream of your self, ie that is firewalled against your own critical reasoning. In practice, a Faith may even be a foreign agent running on your brain, with write access on your mental reality
-
-
"Firewalled from critical reasoning," I like that. I think in practice the firewall is always self-imposed. E.g. I don't want to think too critically about this belief because I am so invested in it, and can't imagine what my life would be like if I discover I'm wrong.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DoqxaScott @pmathies and
I think it is imposed on the self, sometimes by the self, but usually it happens before the self is able to understand what is being imposed by others.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.