We are in agreement here. And if you read to the end of the post you’ll see the answer to your question:
I have, and I still haven’t seen a definition of normality.
I think you meant Euclidean.
That’s too, though I was mostly hinting to relativity.
It’s general.relativity that implies non euclidean space.
Curious how our understanding of things that some people may assume are beyond observations are then happen to be changed by scientific discovery, isn’t it?
Not once you realise scientific discovery isn’t pure empiricism.
Almost all contemporary epistemologists will say that they are fallibilists
That’s nice. Though the key words here are “contemporary” and “epistemologists”.
So where are the philosophers obsessed with certainty? In the past, or in other departments?
I have, and I still haven’t seen a definition of normality.
It’s general.relativity that implies non euclidean space.
Not once you realise scientific discovery isn’t pure empiricism.
So where are the philosophers obsessed with certainty? In the past, or in other departments?