The Fallibility of Knowledge

[Voyager]

@Machinaforce

I was mostly getting at the sample chapter in the link which I think gets into the matter enough.

It does seem to follow the less wrong model though. That we could be wrong and that we can’t even prove that a material universe exists but we carry on as though it does because…well what else is there?

That’s not why we carry on as if a material universe exists. We do that because following that hypothesis seems to work and matches the evidence we see in our lives. If we found that people we were talking to suddenly disappeared and turned up 100 miles away, we might carry on differently.
Similarly we assume that the sun is coming up the next morning. Even if we have a big test the next day and wouldn’t feel too upset if it went nova instead.

[Czarcasm]

@Machinaforce

I’m mostly referring to the segment of the book (where you can click to look inside, I can’t link the passage exactly but it’s a quick find) on Epistemology. The short answer is that all knowledge is fallible and that nothing can be known with true certainty, and then it goes on to try and apply this to economics.

Sounds like old hat to me but I wondered how people respond when there is the claim that “we can be wrong”. I mean science is pretty much based on such a thing right? But does that then invite people to just say anything then if we (and our methods) aren’t perfect?
https://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Funk-Capitalism-Fallibility-ebook/dp/B08471PF9F/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=zen+and+funk&qid=1592259310&s=books&sr=1-1

This book is almost twenty years old and is the only book by this author. I can’t find anything of substance about who he is and what his qualifications are. What caused you to dive into this obscure and unacclaimed book?