Is knowledge said to be forever revisable still knowledge at all?

The fallibilist wants two things at once: to keep knowledge, and yet to admit that none of his beliefs is certain.
But "to know" usually carries a more demanding sense: I do not say I know a thing if I grant at the same time that it might be false. At that point it is no longer knowledge, it is a cautious opinion.
The fallibilist then seems to waver without settling: either he genuinely trusts some of his beliefs, and he rejoins the ; or he holds them all to be uncertain, and he rejoins the .

Therefore So the middle way risks being not a position, but a hesitation between the other two.

Deepenings

Knowledge and certainty

Tradition long defined knowledge as a true and justified belief, to which a requirement of certainty was readily added: one would know only what one cannot doubt.
The fallibilist contests precisely that last addition: to demand certainty, he says, is to confuse knowledge with infallibility, and to condemn all human knowledge in advance.

Possible resolutions of the objection

Your choice is recorded in your profile, like a questionnaire answer.

Challenges