I understand that we are fallible and can get things wrong but it doesn’t follow that we don’t have certainty about some things. I am fallible but, in order to say that, I acknowledge that I exist and that I am writing right now, minimally. I can’t see the reason to not acknowledge some things as being certain. A is A, or a thing is itself, is as true as one can get. Of course, because I am fallible, I could possibly misidentify something as being what it is not (which would be a contradiction) but just because I can always make a mistake does not mean that I always do make a mistake.
I think there is a stolen-concept fallacy happening with CR as it uses deduction to criticize and deduction rests on the law of identity. It seems that Popper is going beyond truth and falsehood in the same way that Nietzsche went beyond good and evil. Nietzsche (correctly) saw problems and difficulties with morality and (incorrectly) decided that we don’t need it. Popperians, likewise, have identified – although they don’t want to call it “identifying” because that implies certainty – problems with certainty/truth and decided that we don’t need it. This is avoidance.
Knowledge must be built up (induced) as much as it needs to be broken down (deduced). Yes, there are problems but they need to be faced instead of only avoided. I view error correction as useful for criticism but not for creation. For creation, you must take a risk. Error correction does not do this.