I think what you're describing is close to scientific fallibilism. As a fallibilist I can maintain that there is objective truth, and that I can learn objective

I think what you're describing is close to scientific fallibilism. As a fallibilist I can maintain that there is objective truth, and that I can learn objective truth, but that I can always make errors, and there's no technique that can guarantee that there are no errors in my understanding. This seems like a pretty reasonable way to frame methods of reason like science and philosophy. For instance, it offers a good explanation for why the scientific method is so effective, even though the explanation may differ from a lot of scientists' philosophy of science which does claim to offer methods which if followed precisely can give guarantees about objective truth.