If every true proposition is knowable, then every believed (decidable) proposition is true, or the incompleteness of the intuitionistic solution to the paradox of knowability
| Abstract | Fitch’s paradox of knowability is an apparently valid reasoning from the assumption (typical of semantic anti-realism) that every true proposition is knowable to the unacceptable conclusion that every true proposition is known. The paper develops a critical dialectic wrt one of the best motivated solutions to the paradox which have been proposed on behalf of semantic anti-realism—namely, the intuitionistic solution. The solution consists, on the one hand, in accepting the intuitionistically valid part of Fitch’s reasoning while, on the other hand, exploiting the characteristic weakness of intuitionistic logic in order to preserve the consistency of such acceptance with the denial of omniscience. It is first remarked how the solution still commits one to acceptance of modal claims which are unwarranted even by the lights of standard intuitionistic semantics. A novel form of the paradox is then introduced, which focuses on infallibility rather than omniscience and derives, from semantic anti-realism and a highly plausible constraint on knowledge, that every believed proposition is not untrue. Because of the logical form of this conclusion, an analogue of the intuitionistic solution for the novel form of the paradox would require drawing the characteristic intuitionistic distinctions wrt decidable propositions, which cannot be done. Semantic anti-realism still intuitionistically entails the unacceptable conclusion that every believed (decidable) proposition is true. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesGreg Restall (2009). Not Every Truth Can Be Known (at Least, Not All at Once). In Joe Salerno (ed.), New Essays on the Knowability Paradox. Oxford University Press.
M. Hand (2003). Knowability and Epistemic Truth. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (2):216 – 228.
Julien Murzi (2010). Knowability and Bivalence: Intuitionistic Solutions to the Paradox of Knowability. Philosophical Studies 149 (2).
Neil Tennant (2001). Is Every Truth Knowable? Reply to Williamson. Ratio 14 (3):263–280.
Stephen Read (2010). Field's Paradox and Its Medieval Solution. History and Philosophy of Logic 31 (2):161-176.
Peter Marton (2006). Verificationists Versus Realists: The Battle Over Knowability. Synthese 151 (1):81 - 98.
Hans van Ditmarsch, Wiebe van der Hoek & Petar Iliev (2011). Everything is Knowable – How to Get to Know Whether a Proposition is True. Theoria 78 (2):93-114.
Salvatore Florio & Julien Murzi (2009). The Paradox of Idealization. Analysis 69 (3):461-469.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-07-08Total downloads41 ( #27,954 of 549,724 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
