Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Fallibilism (Peirce, Dewey, Popper) holds that knowledge does not require infallibility but only justified, revisable belief.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If beliefs are revisable, they lack the stability needed to ground confident action and genuine knowledge claims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Fallibilism conflates 'not infallible' with 'possibly false,' but knowledge might require certainty about core axioms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Some truths (logical laws, basic observations) seem resistant to revision, suggesting fallibilism is too universal.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Science progresses by revising theories in light of new evidence, proving fallibility is compatible with reliable knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Demanding infallibility makes knowledge impossible; no finite being can achieve certainty about anything empirical.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Justified belief tracks truth better than infallibility does, since justification responds to available evidence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.