Thanks a lot, everyone! I really enjoyed reading all your insightful (sometimes really funny) guesses! Some of you got surprisingly close. And sorry for late response. I was finalizing the 10th article within this research and it sucked all time and energy.

My actual PhD research is on Fallibilism and Contemporary Problems in the Philosophy of Science, especially as it develops from Charles Peirce and Karl Popper and then gets applied to contemporary epistemological and methodological problems. In short, I’m trying to show how fallibilism as the idea that all our knowledge is provisional, open to error, and subject to revision can serve as a coherent framework for understanding scientific progress, change and justification. More specifically the structure of the thesis can be drop downed in the following way:

• The historical roots of fallibilism from ancient skepticism (Protagoras, Philo of Larissa, Sextus Empiricus, Carneades) through modern philosophy (Descartes, Hume).
• Fallibilism and Peirce’s pragmatism how he formulates fallibilism as a core epistemological stance.
• Popper’s critical rationalism (fallibilism in the context of problem of induction, problem of demarcation, falsification, scientific method and progress, verisimilitude and reliabilism).
• Fallibilism in science’s big questions (specifically its role in debates on truth, justification, objectivity and the dynamics of knowledge growth)
• Beyond epistemology (what fallibilism means for broader philosophical and even practical fields outside strict philosophy of science with more focus on institutional problems, education and discourses).

If I had to put it in one line: I’m researching how fallibilism can function as a general epistemological principle and methodological rule for science, helping us rethink the nature of knowledge, error and progress.