This is a mostly a question for @curi, but thoughts and input are welcome.
How should I refer to @curi wrt Critical Fallibilism?
I think I might have, recently, referred to CF as “the philosophy of Elliot Temple” (if not: that is a quote from a draft I’m writing) – and indeed, checking now, it’s in the
<meta description> of this very webpage! (Maybe that’s where i got the phrasing)
@curi is this how you’d prefer CF to be described (and your relationship to it)?
I have researched this idea a bit, particularly looking in to Rand and Objectivism. From memory I didn’t find anything decisive (except her objections to particular things – the name Randism stands out as one).
There are terms like founder, or creator, that apply, but I don’t particularly like those terms (not sure of curi’s view). IMO the meta-description is good – the name means something specific as opposed to letting it float free. Example of somewhat free-floating; atlassociety says:
This sounds technically correct, but if the mainstream idea of objectivism strayed from Rand’s ideas (which mb it has?), would that still be objectivism? I think not, it’d be something new / different.
Here’s some context of the sort of relationship I want to express; from a draft called “What has Critical Fallibilism done for me?”, the first sentence:
There are some other unpublished examples (which I can’t share b/c they’re related to work) – but looking at those, now, the attribution-footnote skirts the issue of what CF is. I could use the phrasing from the meta-description (it would fit in nicely), but want to check w/ @curi first.