A topic in the Open Knowledge Graph — a free, open map of 15,290 topics and the order to learn them in.
Infallibilism requires that knowledge entails infallibility or certainty—one cannot know a proposition one could be mistaken about. This aligns knowledge closely with certainty and aims to avoid the problem of easily-refutable knowledge claims. Infallibilists typically restrict knowledge to special domains (logic, mathematics, or self-knowledge) or radically limit what we can know about the world. The view struggles against the intuition that we do know empirical facts despite potential for error.
Identify domains where infallibilism seems plausible (mathematics, logic, introspection) and domains where it fails (empirical science, perception). Discuss whether restricting knowledge to infallible domains matches our practices.
You've already studied the classic analysis of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB) and its problems. Infallibilism is a response to one underlying worry about that analysis: that justification admits of degrees and could always, in principle, fall short. If knowledge requires only "good enough" justification, the skeptic can always ask: but what if your evidence is deceiving you? Infallibilism eliminates that loophole by demanding that genuine knowledge be infallible — that knowing a proposition entail that one *cannot be mistaken* about it. If you could be wrong, you don't know.
This is a powerful and internally coherent position. It draws on a pre-theoretical intuition that knowledge and luck don't mix: if you just happened to believe something true despite having misleading evidence, that isn't knowledge. Infallibilism takes this intuition to its logical limit. Consider mathematical knowledge as the clearest example. If you've correctly proven a theorem, you cannot be mistaken about it (given the axioms and rules of logic). The proof *guarantees* the conclusion. Similarly, when you introspect and report "I am in pain right now," it's very hard to see how you could be wrong — your access to your own current mental states seems uniquely privileged and error-proof. These are the domains where infallibilism feels most plausible.
The problem emerges when you apply infallibilism to ordinary empirical claims: "There is a cup on this table," "It rained yesterday," "Water is H₂O." For nearly all empirical beliefs, the skeptical possibility looms: perceptual illusions, memory errors, systematic deception. Infallibilism seems to imply that you don't know any of these things — not because your evidence is weak, but because it's *logically possible* that you're wrong. This is where infallibilism and skepticism become entangled. The infallibilist doesn't want to say you know nothing about the external world; they typically want to restrict knowledge to domains where certainty is achievable (logic, mathematics, introspection, perhaps a narrow class of perceptual reports). But this restriction may exclude most of what we think of as the body of human knowledge.
The key distinction to keep sharp is between infallibility in the *logical* sense and certainty in the *psychological* sense. Infallibilism doesn't require that you feel certain — it requires that the truth of the proposition be *guaranteed* by your epistemic position. This is a much stronger claim. A person can feel absolutely certain about a false belief (zealots, victims of cognitive bias, people under hypnosis), and such psychological certainty clearly doesn't constitute knowledge. Infallibilism points in the other direction: not that feeling certain = knowing, but that knowing = being in a position where error is impossible. Understanding this distinction — between epistemic guarantee and subjective confidence — is essential for navigating the full landscape of epistemological views about justification, certainty, and the scope of knowledge.
Topics in reflective domains aren't scored by quiz answers. Read, reflect, and mark when you've thought it through.