Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading content…
Loading…
Transcript

Fallibilism vs Infallibilism

Work cited

Which is correct?

Fallibilism

-Infallibilism uses the first reason to disprove it

-If it is wrong is it really knowledge

Baron Reed Identifies 2 reasons why Fallibilism is correct

1) Our faculties are flawed

2) The things we currently hold to be knowledge

Possible problems with these reasons

So Who Wins

Why is this important

-Feels as if by accepting fallibilism one accepts that humans make errors in judgement but can still have knowledge

-History and past evidence- why would we be at an "epistomological privileged position"

-Essential part of other epistomological discussions and theories

-Neither

-Both side knows the others evidence yet retains their own opinions

-Reasonable disagreement

Meerbote and Fallibilism

What is the major difference?

-This idea was originally articulated by Edmond Gettier

-A case in which a person has a justified true belief that is not knowledge

Gettier Problem

-Tom thinks Bob is going to ask his daughter to marry him

-His proof:

-Bob has been dating Angie (Tom’s eldest daughter for 4 years)

-Bob asked Tom how he would feel about having him as a son in law

-Tom’s wife herd Bob talking about how Angie deserved to settle down soon

-Tom neighbor say Bob at the jewelry store buying a ring

-Bob does ask one of Tom’s daughters to marry him!

If we cannot know that this world is real, we cannot prove we have knowledge about it

-Descartes was the first philosopher to give it serious attention

-How do we know we are not dreaming

-When we are dreaming we do not know till we wake up

What does this have to do with fallibilism?

Infallibilism says that in order to have knowledge there must be no chance of error or a belief being incorrect while fallibilism allows the possibility of error

Dream Argument

An example

Bob didn’t ask Angie to marry him but instead asked her little sister Carrie!

-While Tom technically had a justified true belief that Bob would ask his daughter to marry him most of us would not consider this to be knowledge

-Why: because this is more luck than anything

-What this could mean: maybe our whole life is one Gettier problem and we just haven’t realized it yet

The Problem

What this means

-Me and my counterpart have the exact same evidence that our experiences are real and our knowledge is correct it

Only one of us is actually living these experiences, while the other is just a brain in a vat

-It seems unreasonable to say that

-one of us has knowledge while the other does not

-a person can have knowledge even if they are completely off base

-Therefore we can have no knowledge

Brain in a vat

If There Is A Chance Of Our Current Knowledge Being Wrong Was It Ever Really Knowledge?

Infallibilism

So what do I think?

-Lottery case

-Intuition/ Logic

-Logic

-Analytical truth

-something known a priori

-Stephen Hetherington= problem with the way infallilibism tries to disprove fallibilism

-creates circularity

-holds fallibilism to standard it does not agree to

Self refuting

If we cannot prove infallibilism is correct than we cannot know it is true

Infallibilism assumes infallibilism is true

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi