Fallibilism

As an epistemic moderate, I believe that objective truth, though desirable and existent somewhere, likely is unknowable, at least for now, for humans. Probably certain truth is the best that we can hope to acquire.

Now, both Eric Hoffer and I, fallibilists both of us, make absolute, emphatic, and totalistic statements that seem to contradict our fallibilist self-identifying.

I think I can explain while denying we are self-contradictory or hypocritical about the issue of epistemic fallibilism. 

Hoffer and I seem more absolutist, opinionated and extreme in what we write and say. This is more a matter of bombastic style than actual point of view. Also, Hoffer often deliberately exaggerated or overstated to make a point, when in fact he was not as black and white in his analysis, as he may be taken by the superficial reader or listener.

The reader and listener need to understand the overall message in order to capture what Hoffer or I wrote or write, or said or say. They must not take our statements out of context.