*

An invisible asterisk follows my writing. It says this:

Though my propositions are not always draped in explicit qualifications of fallibilism, I am well aware of the necessity to hold one's convictions at an arm's length. To infuse this nuance in each sentence would be not only distracting but prohibitive to the development of my ideas. That which is to be questioned should be first confidently presented, lest it shoot itself down before even materializing. I trust my readers to apply their own grain of salt; I implore my readers to share these. Emails, tweets, response essays...all comment is welcome and treasured.

Advice given is to myself, not a command toward others. As is probably unavoidable, much of my writing is abstraction upon a personal need for answers. It may be taken as such or, if solving the reader's own need for answers, applied where useful.

When using phrases like 'we should' I indicate a society of my imagination, in my head exploring collective action that, if my train of thought be correct, would be more effective. Eventually, I hope my writing to inspire and move others to action, but this is not a status I currently claim. For now, I just explore.

Behind this asterisk is ultimately the concept of critical rationalism, the theory that knowledge is never justifiably believed, but that it does objectively exist: convergence happens through guesses and debate. Hopefully, in 5 years I will be entirely embarrassed of my past writing. If I'm lucky, I'll have converged that far sooner.