I thought Glen might like this:
This Hegelian view is virtually identical with the so-called epistemological fallibilism (more on which later in this essay) that occupied such a prominent position in Peirce's thinking. For Peirce, every intellectual position is open to criticism and further investigation. Thus for both Peirce and Hegel there is no final, fixed intellectual position free from any potential for being revised; and the processes of revision are in the long run self-correcting.
It’s from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/self-contextualization.html
Although, come to think of it, he might disagree with the part after the semi-colon; i.e., he might belief that science is a random walk.
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |