Critical Rationalism from how I understand it supposes that justificationsim is merely assumed and can’t justify itself–therefore is irrational. I agree with this presumption; justificationism lead me to a path of skepticism.
Critical Rationalism assumes fallibilism or falsificationism which can itself be falsified. This leaves the premise of Critical Rationalism as rational to believe (or up for criticism). Critical Rationalism sounded great at the onset, but I just recently discovered one problem with it:
Say I have an idea open for criticism (open to be falsified) then someone offers me criticism. How am I to determine whether the criticism is valid or invalid criticism? Does the criticism itself then become open to criticism? Isn’t this the equivalent of the problem of regression–but for CR instead of TR? What is to stop an endless chain of criticisms to criticisms?
This leads me to believe that criticisms do not bring us closer to the truth, but bring two persons’ opinions closer together (if they decide to revise their beliefs). What’s to stop a criticism of an idea from being a false criticism and taking people further from the truth?
This was submitted as a comment on the criticism page of this blog. I decided to post the comment here instead of there as it might get more attention and a better response.