"the realization that human understanding is often partial (which is obvious to most people) need not militate against absolute truth"

Why not, I wonder? Please explain.

That was Popper's dilemma; that's what his book was about.

All he could manage in defending the concept was that the definition (correspondence) was still coherent in theory. He was obliged to admit that in practice we can't have it both ways.

It seems to me that we have the option of insisting without justification that our best descriptions are absolutely true, or else we recognize that fallibilism is a better (more justified, pragmatic and openminded) approach than absolutism.

Is this right or wrong? How would you or we decide that?

Is it absolutely true? I don't think so, but that's not my concern! My concern is that people need to believe that whatever they believe is absolutely true...why is that, hmmm?

Do we need it to be right or wrong? Well, only if we have standards for how to decide that; otherwise, what's the point of arguing? That's the problem with people's use of philosophy - we don't always consider the practical consequences of our best (or worst!) ideas!

Do we need it to be absolutely true or false? Why would we?

For any such complex issue, perhaps we could settle for understanding that one approach is more coherent with evidence, reasoning and beneficent purposes than another?

Why not?

What would be the consequences of that?

I appreciate the inquiry, Hive account@axiogenesis.

all the best (none of the worst)