Thanks to American Writes reader Laura V. for sending the following note to me:
“I subscribe to a philosophy of “fallibilism”, distinguished by philosophy Prof. Rick Roderick of the Universtiy of Texas. Fallibilism is a fervent and passionate conviction in what one believes to be true with the available information, while simultaneously holding that that information is likely incomplete and will be expanded at some point in the future, thus rendering past passionately held opinions and positions outdated and invalid, thus fallible.
This then requires the willingness to abandon the former position in light of new information, evidence and knowledge.“
I thought it was interesting, and sounded a lot like what was going on with you (taking a position on something based on the information you had, realizing that your questions probably had answers.) I’d never heard of this philosophy before, but thought it was quite an amazing coincidence to stumble across it today. Things that make you go hmmmm……
Thanks Laura!
I find fallibilism an interesting philosophy. Ironically, it’s a bit too absolute for my tastes, but has some merits worth pondering. With slight modification I think it might be able to describe my political blogging, at least:
Perhaps…
A fervent and passionate conviction in what one believes to be true with the available information, while simultaneously holding that that information MAY BE incomplete and COULD be expanded at some point in the future, thus rendering past passionately held opinions and positions outdated and POTENTIALLY invalid, thus fallible.
This then requires the willingness to abandon OR MODIFY the former position in light of new information, evidence and knowledge.
I’ve certainly practiced that. I don’t hold absolutes and correct things I blog about when more information is brought to light.
I think it explains my willingness to discuss calmly and in the public arena any ideas with anyone as long as they remain civil in their discourse.
I think by definition the place I am in in life comes from accepting that the Liberal Atheist I used to be was wrong. So I must have been a fallibilist then.
I mean, if we found out that life doesn’t begin until ten minutes out of the womb and ends when the first wrinkles appear, that would sorta take abortion, euthaniasia, and assisted elederly suicide off the table, eh?
My experience with them, both on their side and this side, leads me to think that Liberals are the absolutists. That’s why they resort to calling Conservatives names when they can no longer attack the ideas. Name calling is an absolutist approach.
That’s when Conservatives just shake their head, knowing that neither one can ever be absolutely right, but also knowing the Liberal won’t understand that. So we walk away and go back to work.
And the Liberal just goes to find someone else to call names. As if it were their job.
Kristofer Cowles has written 306 articles on this blog.
