Fallibilism
The fallibilism ( from Late niches fallibilis, " obliged to err " ) is an epistemological position, according to which there can be no absolute certainty and can exclude errors never. A strategy of cause or justification with the ultimate aim to give a final justification, can never lead to success. Therefore, only, beliefs, opinions or hypotheses remains always on errors to check back and be replaced where possible by better (see falsifiability ).
In ancient times known as a representative fallibilistischer positions Arcesilaus and Carneades. In recent philosophy Fries and Peirce are mentioned. The most important modern fallibilistische position Poppers critical rationalism.
The fallibilistische position assumes that there is an absolute truth, in terms of the error can take place. Fallibilisten are therefore not relativists who deny the existence of an absolute truth. They also are not nihilists, representing that the man is always wrong. They merely claim that it can always be wrong. You also need not necessarily be true skeptics who argued that there is always and in principle reason to doubt all beliefs.
The fallibilistische position also does not mean that there are no justified beliefs, that does not deny the possibility of a justification. It says only that the best justification can never rule out a possible error. Fallibilistische positions not say therefore that beliefs could never be knowledge in the classical sense ( justified, true belief ), but only that there is never certainty whether they are knowledge. The fact that there is no justified beliefs and avoid a knowledge in the traditional sense, only states of knowledge skepticism, the addition represented some representatives of critical rationalism ( Popper, Miller, Bartley ), but not all of fallibilism.
Popper referred to fallibilism mainly on the statements of empirical science, and stood in this context against the assertion that one could by logical induction (ie, the closing of a single statement on a general statement ) arrive at a certainty. But there is another statement classes for which can raise the question whether the fallibilism of this is valid. These include the performatives ( "I hereby baptize you ' Hans ' " ), certain psychological self- information (" Something now hurts me " ), statements of logic ( "p ↔ not not p" ) and mathematics ( " square root of 2 is an irrational number " ), as well as tautologies or analytic statements ( " The sentence ' snow is white ' is only true if snow is white ").. Many philosophers believe in one or more of these cases is absolute certainty to achieve very well. Some are also of the opinion, certain statements are neither true nor false, and therefore can not be spoken here by mistake.
In the Münchhausen trilemma he called Hans Albert argues that the fallibilism is universally applicable, this result regardless of which form of knowledge as well as the chosen way on a secure foundation. There are also different approaches to apply the fallibilism in the field of foundations of mathematics. Since you can even set the foundations of logic and mathematics in question, one thus gets to the question of a core logic, ie a minimum set of rules, which is required to even still argue with each other.
Hans Albert was referring to fallibilism, understood as a method of critical examination waiving the search for final arguments and the pursuit of accurate precalculation of all consequences socially technical interventions, as well to the field of rational practice (ie, methodology, ethics, politics, economics, ... ).