"Implicit in the cognitive norms of empirical evidence and observation is the assumption of fallibility, the idea that we may not be getting the world quite right, that we might someday have a more accurate view of reality based on more reliable and comprehensive observations and evidence. "
This quote was taken from our most recent reading, and something about it bothers me. I dont see how fallibility can be considered an assumption, because history has already proved that its true. It says that 'we might someday have a more accurate view of reality...", but we already know this to be true because todays world has a better view of reality and of what the world is like than the people from 400 years ago did.
Of course, as the years go on, science will improve and we will be able to have 'more reliable and comprehensive observations and evidence".
So I think 'assumption' is the wrong word to use here. It's not an assumption if we already know that it is gonna happen.
2 comments:
I suppose fallibility itself might exclude the possibility of being positive we are fallible. But that's running in circles; you're right to say we've almost certainly concluded we are indeed fallible. Perhaps the article was merely trying to note this obvious conclusion in the face of alternative modes of thinking which champion human observation and deny its fallibility.
Being fallible about our fallibility means only that we might at times be infallible (say, when doing basic mathematics).
Post a Comment