> You would think that the conjurer of the paradox would have shifted to empiricism or idealism—maybe my faith in people betrays me. What does this mean? > Ka

> You would think that the conjurer of the paradox would have shifted to empiricism or idealism—maybe my faith in people betrays me. What does this mean? > Karl Popper argued that a way to avoid the trilemma was to use an intermediate approach incorporating some dogmatism, some infinite regress, and some perceptual experience. > One example of an alternative is the fallibilism of Karl Popper and Hans Albert, accepting that certainty is impossible, but that it is best to get as close as possible to truth, while remembering our uncertainty. The only difference I see between "This is true to the best of my knowledge and experience" and "This is true because to the best of my knowledge and experience, therefore it is certainly true" (empiricism) or how conceited the thinker is about their own infallibility. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism)