Fallibilism

There is a consensus among epistemologists in favour of fallibilism, the view that a person can know a proposition, even if that person does not have conclusive justification for the truth of that proposition. In this video, I begin by characterizing different versions of fallibilism, then I explain why most epistemologists are fallibilists. Next, I present four arguments against fallibilism.
0:00 - Introduction
1:17 - Characterizing fallibilism
Why has fallibilism become so widely accepted?
7:12 - Skepticism and particularism
18:40 - Knowledge as the aim of inquiry
20:06 - Knowledge and epistemic goals
Challenges to fallibilism
23:20 - Linguistic intuition
28:20 - Gettier cases
32:23 - Lottery paradoxes
38:22 - The threshold problem

[@KaneB]

My Patreon: www.patreon.com/kanebaker91

[@fanboy8026]

nice video Kane bro

[@DanielCCaz]

You make a strong case for INFALLIBILISM.

[@ryrez4478]

Great video thank you

[@WorthlessWinner]

17:50 and 24:00 are there studies on how common these intuitions are among people? I don't think I have either of those intuitions, so they're not universal. What fraction of the population would need to react in this way for it to be a problem?
Shoving discreet catagories on things that vary continuously usually leads to this arbitrariness issue. It seems like our level of the components of knowledge (certainty of belief and its justification) varies continuously not discreetly, so just adding a qualifier regarding how much of those things (how much knowledge) we have seems better than just saying we have knowledge or don't have knowledge.

[@KaneB]

Re the idea that attributions of knowledge are sensitive to whether or not sources of doubt are brought to our attention, some of the studies cited in section II of this article may be relevant:
www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jbeebe2/Beebe%20Experimental%20Epistemology%20Survey.pdf
As for the supposed bizarreness of statements like "I know that P, but it might be the case that not-P", I'm not aware of any studies on that, unfortunately.

[@unhingedconnoisseur164]

I wonder if peoples' reaction to the sceptical hypothesis (e.g their being troubled by it) can be accounted for on a fallibilist model
perhaps the fallibilist could argue that the sceptical argument attempts to show even have fallibilistic knowledge that we aren't in a sceptical scenario (for the sake of argument, that we're a brain in a vat) , because we have absolutely no justification to think that we are not. because of this, all of our other knowledge comes into question in order to avoid an abominable conjunction, e.g "i know i have hands but i dont know that i'm a handless brain in a vat"
i think this would be different from the "i know my car is parked outside but i could be wrong about this" example because knowledge is explicitly affirmed for having hands and explicitly denied for being a handless brain in a vat, whereas the car example says that you believe that you know that your car is parked outside, but this belief could be wrong such that you dont actually have knowledge of the car being outside. the latter example of more mundane fallibilistic knowledge seems to avoid the abominable conjunction
الله أعلم

[@avaevathornton9851]

I think I would say there were 2 senses of the verb "know"; if someone used it in a casual context without emphasising the knowledge part of the sentence e.g. "I skipped breakfast because I knew I would miss the bus if I didn't", I would interpret that in a fallibilist (and impurist) sense, whereas if it was emphasized and in a context where it was appropriate to take even very unlikely possibilities seriously e.g. "this argument _ seems_ deductively valid, but do you _know_ you haven't made any mistakes in working through it?", I would interpret that in an infallibilist sense.

[@orangereplyer]

I think that's known as contextualism; Kane has an interesting video with a counterargument to the position.

[@DigitalGnosis]

Hey Kane - really loving the channel, especially your philosophy of mind series. Would you be interested in coming on my channel as a guest at some point?

[@KaneB]

Sure, I'm open to that, depending on what exactly you're looking for. My email is on my channel description; it might be easier to organize it over email than the youtube comments section. (I would just put my email here, but youtube seems to automatically delete comments when I do that.)

[@DigitalGnosis]

@@KaneB I shall send you an email!

[@ryrez4478]

Going to watch this now!