Talk:Infallibility

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Epistemology Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Neutrality

I find it hard to decide how neutral this article is, as there were no references. I have added a quote- in the theology section- from a standard reference work to try to tidy up the Christian theological issues. What was there before didn't make a lot of sense to me, I'm afraid! --Slackbuie 23:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For NPOV articles must be verifiable. I've been waiting til someone else replied before i make any changes. They do say Be bold in updating pages when adding but that doesn't mean be wreckless deleting. I haven't looked for more sources for this article tho. --Tsinoyboi 16:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that marking it for NPOV-check is a little exaggerated, the request for citations should be enough. Between thumb and index finger, I estimate the article to be fairly neutral. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Carl is infallible"? Is that some sort of glory vandalisation? Or a poor attempt to make a more specific example of point 6? If so, can it be generalised please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.79.49 (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Michael Hardy (Some of this seems quite POV.)
Michael Hardy (It is very POV to equate infallibility with certainty!)

I assume POV stands for point of view.
I point out that I made bold changes and I expect that when the dust settles the POV will settle into more politically correct language. Meanwhile I write what I feel needs to be written and I hope you understand I mean no disrespect. All my additions are at least arguably factually correct and again I expect the language to get more dry as people contribute to it, including me.User:Jtocci

I hope you agree with my reiteration that infallibility is an ability, not an inability. It is very obvious when you think about it. People assert things they are unsure of all the time. So people are infallible sometimes and fallible at other times. Understood this way it is better to assert infallibility as an ability that can be exercised or not, rather than an inability which means that the opposite can't be obtained. Error can be obtained, but saying 'inability to err' means it can't, so infallibility (a human trait) should be described in a different way, even if you have a concise/student dictionary that abbreviates the definition that way for brevity.User:Jtocci

I don't think people are ever infallible, but I do think we can have certainty. Michael Hardy 15:41 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If you can explain your view in a little more detail, I'm sure it would be a valuable addition to this entry. One way to do it would be to start a new paragraph at the third sentence and either branch it or expound. In fact, I'm going to add a placeholder after I write this. I can honestly say I've known dozens of people who stated that people were not infallible, but they always surrendered because I asked them if they could be wrong. They wanted to say no--they really wanted to say no--but if they couldn't be wrong... well, you're probably smart enough to see where this is going...
Anyway, infallibility makes the world go round. The philosophers of the world can deny it all they want, they still go to the bank and expect five twenties in a hundred. But by all means please add your POV. I would but I honestly have no conception how to explain the resistance I've gotten on this topic, it blindsides me every time. So not only will you possibly explain something that's baffled me, you'll make the article better and that's what counts here.User:Jtocci

Jtocci, i think you mean biased. NPOV stands for neutral point of view, not non-pov. I think some information on this page is still biased. Nothing shows how it's related to knowing truth. Seen here, http://m-w.com/dictionary/infallibility certain is used, but usage is not explained, so I'm still not seeing how they relate. If something is infallible then it's truth, but how do u know it's infallible? how can one be certain of being infallible? especially without assuming?

Not much is talked about philisophical views about infallibility, except that it questions the ability to know. Does no one else question the ability to know? How do you know something is infallible? does that not need to be included in this page?

If this page is legit with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR, then User:Tsinoyboi/Agnostic_theism should be legit, too.

--Tsinoyboi 07:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, dividing a hundred dollars into five twenty dollar bills is using math. Isn't math abstract? Math uses logic. The given is that u own 100 dollars. A twenty doller bill is worth 20 dollars. If u divide 100 dollars by 20 dollars/twenty dollar bill, u come out with 5 twenty dollar bills.

${\mbox{Given: You own 100 dollars in the bank}}\!$

Is that infallible?

${\mbox{Given: 1 twenty dollar bill is worth 20 dollars}}\!$

Is that infallible?

$100{\mbox{ dollars}}\times {\frac {1{\mbox{ twenty dollar bills}}}{20{\mbox{ dollars}}}}=5{\mbox{ twenty dollar bills}}$

Is that infallible?

Dollars cancel out and final units are Bills
So If you own 100 dollars, you own 5 twenty dollar bills. This math is a form of logic since you need to be certain of owning 100 dollars and that those bank notes with a number 20 is worth 20 dollars to conclude that you should get 5 twenty dollar bills. Does that make logic infallible?

--Tsinoyboi 07:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is death infallible?

--Tsinoyboi 17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the articles. Find sources for your statements and evaluate whether your statements can be added to the article in order to improve it. WP is not a discussion board about elementary logic, that should be learnt elsewhere. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to include more traditional understanding of the term

I hope you don't mind me adding a few more definitions. It still seems incomplete to me. I hope someone can help make this bigger.

--203.59.137.199 13:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a major overhaul of the page, while trying to preserve all the existing content.

-- Lawrence King 12:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had to add something to this

Michael, I hope you don't mind me adding the Islamic POV on infallibility - and I agree, it's definitely and ability and not an inability:)--Muslimguy 77 03:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shia theology holds that all prophets of God are infallible, including prophet Adam, according to the Shiite encyclopedia cited. aliasad 04:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this addition is good (even though I am not Michael). I changed the outline level of 4.1.1 to match the indentation of your Shi'a section. Lawrence King 03:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infallibility and Wikipedia

I think wikipedia is infallible. just sayin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.133.23 (talk) 04:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were, there would be no room for improvement. I presume you're kidding, but the real prospect of wikipedia being infallible would be a really sad fate. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism section

This section is largely unsourced and highly OR. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infallibe (computer programming)

I stumbled upon a meaning of the word "infallible" in computer programming: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Infallible_memory_allocation

What do you think? Should the meaning be added to this article (as a topic: "Other meanings") or should there be created a new one, since the meaning has nothing to do with "knowing truth with certainty" and the rest of the article.

--Johannesponader (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In psychology and sociology section

I was considering just deleting this section completely. I am sincerely uncertain as to what's even being discussed here, besides the lack of any citations or references. Is it just talking about "cogito ergo sum" and skepticism or what? 76.17.206.220 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the clock

What is inaccurate about: "Thus the Pope may sin in his private life, but he is infallible while on the clock." Does the Pope work 24/7, is being Pope a salaried job, or is the Pope infallible 24/7 no matter what? A single sentence doesn't preclude additional text (for example the Bible has more than one sentence), so, to use a colloquialism, it doesn't "take up space", at least not an infinite space. Hyacinth (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]