Changes

*3. Fallacious, delusive. Obs. rare.

*3. Fallacious, delusive. Obs. rare.

==Description==

==Description==

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of [[knowledge]] could, in principle, be mistaken. Some fallibilists go further, arguing that absolute certainty about [[knowledge]] is impossible. As a [[formal]] [[doctrine]], it is most strongly associated with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce Charles Sanders Peirce], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey John Dewey], and other pragmatists, who use it in their attacks on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism foundationalism]. However, it is arguably already present in the views of some ancient philosophers, including Xenophanes, [[Socrates]], and [[Plato]]. Another proponent of fallibilism is [[Karl Popper]], who builds his theory of [[knowledge]], critical rationalism, on fallibilistic presuppositions. Fallibilism has been employed by Willard Van Orman Quine to attack, among other [[things]], the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements. Fallibilism has also been employed by [[George Soros]] to refute the assumptions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory rational choice theory] which is widely used by economists for the understanding and [[modeling]] of [[economic]] [[behavior]].

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of [[knowledge]] could, in principle, be mistaken. Some fallibilists go further, arguing that absolute certainty about [[knowledge]] is impossible. As a [[formal]] [[doctrine]], it is most strongly associated with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sanders_Peirce Charles Sanders Peirce], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey John Dewey], and other pragmatists, who use it in their attacks on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism foundationalism]. However, it is arguably already present in the views of some ancient philosophers, including Xenophanes, [[Socrates]], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato Plato]. Another proponent of fallibilism is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper Karl Popper], who builds his theory of [[knowledge]], critical rationalism, on fallibilistic presuppositions. Fallibilism has been employed by Willard Van Orman Quine to attack, among other [[things]], the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements. Fallibilism has also been employed by [[George Soros]] to refute the assumptions of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory rational choice theory] which is widely used by economists for the understanding and [[modeling]] of [[economic]] [[behavior]].

Unlike scepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge - we needn't have [[logic]]ally 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 [[logic]]al [[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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma Münchhausen Trilemma].

Unlike scepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge - we needn't have [[logic]]ally 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 [[logic]]al [[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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma Münchhausen Trilemma].