Search results for 'Fitch's Paradox' (try it on Scholar)

149 found
Sort by:
  1. Samuel Alexander (2013). An Axiomatic Version of Fitch's Paradox. Synthese 190 (12):2015-2020.score: 720.0
    A variation of Fitch’s paradox is given, where no special rules of inference are assumed, only axioms. These axioms follow from the familiar assumptions which involve rules of inference. We show (by constructing a model) that by allowing that possibly the knower doesn’t know his own soundness (while still requiring he be sound), Fitch’s paradox is avoided. Provided one is willing to admit that sound knowers may be ignorant of their own soundness, this might offer a way out (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Carlo Proietti (2012). Intuitionistic Epistemic Logic, Kripke Models and Fitch's Paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (5):877-900.score: 720.0
    The present work is motivated by two questions. (1) What should an intuitionistic epistemic logic look like? (2) How should one interpret the knowledge operator in a Kripke-model for it? In what follows we outline an answer to (2) and give a model-theoretic definition of the operator K. This will shed some light also on (1), since it turns out that K, defined as we do, fulfills the properties of a necessity operator for a normal modal logic. The interest of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Helge Rückert (2004). A SOLUTION TO FITCH'S PARADOX OF KNOWABILITY. In S. Rahman J. Symons (ed.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Kluwer Academic Publisher. 351--380.score: 720.0
    There is an argument (first presented by Fitch), which tries to show by formal means that the anti-realistic thesis that every truth might possibly be known, is equivalent to the unacceptable thesis that every truth is actually known (at some time in the past, present or future). First, the argument is presented and some proposals for the solution of Fitch's Paradox are briefly discussed. Then, by using Wehmeier's modal logic with subjunctive marks (S5*), it is shown how the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Jose Luis Bermudez (2009). Truth, Indefinite Extensibility, and Fitch's Paradox. In Joe Salerno (ed.), New Essays on the Knowability Paradox. Oxford University Press.score: 681.0
    A number of authors have noted that the key steps in Fitch’s argument are not intuitionistically valid, and some have proposed this as a reason for an anti-realist to accept intuitionistic logic (e.g. Williamson 1982, 1988). This line of reasoning rests upon two assumptions. The first is that the premises of Fitch’s argument make sense from an anti-realist point of view – and in particular, that an anti-realist can and should maintain the principle that all truths are knowable. The second (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Berit Brogaard & Joe Salerno, Fitch's Paradox of Knowability. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 639.0
    The paradox of knowability is a logical result suggesting that, necessarily, if all truths are knowable in principle then all truths are in fact known. The contrapositive of the result says, necessarily, if in fact there is an unknown truth, then there is a truth that couldn't possibly be known. More specifically, if p is a truth that is never known then it is unknowable that p is a truth that is never known. The proof has been used to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Carlo Proietti & Gabriel Sandu (2010). Fitch's Paradox and Ceteris Paribus Modalities. Synthese 173 (1):75 - 87.score: 540.0
    The paper attempts to give a solution to the Fitch’s paradox though the strategy of the reformulation of the paradox in temporal logic, and a notion of knowledge which is a kind of ceteris paribus modality. An analogous solution has been offered in a different context to solve the problem of metaphysical determinism.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Rafał Palczewski (2007). Distributed Knowability and Fitch's Paradox. Studia Logica 86 (3):455--478.score: 540.0
    Recently predominant forms of anti-realism claim that all truths are knowable. We argue that in a logical explanation of the notion of knowability more attention should be paid to its epistemic part. Especially very useful in such explanation are notions of group knowledge. In this paper we examine mainly the notion of distributed knowability and show its effectiveness in the case of Fitch’s paradox. Proposed approach raised some philosophical questions to which we try to find responses. We also show (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Igor Douven (2007). Fitch's Paradox and Probabilistic Antirealism. Studia Logica 86 (2):149 - 182.score: 540.0
    Fitch’s paradox shows, from fairly innocent-looking assumptions, that if there are any unknown truths, then there are unknowable truths. This is generally thought to deliver a blow to antirealist positions that imply that all truths are knowable. The present paper argues that a probabilistic version of antirealism escapes Fitch’s result while still offering all that antirealists should care for.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Alexandre Costa-Leite (2006). Fusions of Modal Logics and Fitch's Paradox. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (2):281-290.score: 540.0
    This article shows that although Fitch’s paradox has been extremely widely studied, up to now no correct formalization of the problem has been proposed. The purpose of this article is to present the paradox front the viewpoint of combining logics. It is argued that the correct minimal logic to state the paradox is composed by a fusion of modal frames, and a fusion of modal languages and logics.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Thorsten Sander (2006). Fitch's Paradox and the Problem of Shared Content. Abstracta 3 (1):74-86.score: 537.0
    According to the “paradox of knowability”, the moderate thesis that (necessarily) all truths are knowable – ‘∀p (p ⊃ ◊Kp) ’ – implies the seemingly preposterous claim that all truths are actually known – ‘∀p (p ⊃ Kp) ’ –, i.e. that we are omniscient. If Fitch’s argument were successful, it would amount to a knockdown rebuttal of anti-realism by reductio. In the paper I defend the nowadays rather neglected strategy of intuitionistic revisionism. Employing only intuitionistically acceptable rules of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. JC Beall (2000). Fitch's Proof, Verificationism, and the Knower Paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (2):241 – 247.score: 522.0
    I have argued that without an adequate solution to the knower paradox Fitch's Proof is- or at least ought to be-ineffective against verificationism. Of course, in order to follow my suggestion verificationists must maintain that there is currently no adequate solution to the knower paradox, and that the paradox continues to provide prima facie evidence of inconsistent knowledge. By my lights, any glimpse at the literature on paradoxes offers strong support for the first thesis, and any (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Berit Brogaard (2009). On Keeping Blue Swans and Unknowable Facts at Bay : A Case Study on Fitch's Paradox. In Joe Salerno (ed.), New Essays on the Knowability Paradox. Oxford University Press.score: 501.0
    (T5) ϕ → ◊Kϕ |-- ϕ → Kϕ where ◊ is possibility, and ‘Kϕ’ is to be read as ϕ is known by someone at some time. Let us call the premise the knowability principle and the conclusion near-omniscience.2 Here is a way of formulating Fitch’s proof of (T5). Suppose the knowability principle is true. Then the following instance of it is true: (p & ~Kp) → ◊K(p & ~Kp). But the consequent is false, it is not possible to know (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Igor Douven (2005). A Principled Solution to Fitch's Paradox. Erkenntnis 62 (1):47 - 69.score: 468.0
    To save antirealism from Fitchs Paradox, Tennant has proposed to restrict the scope of the antirealist principle that all truths are knowable to truths that can be consistently assumed to be known. Although the proposal solves the paradox, it has been accused of doing so in an ad hoc manner. This paper argues that, first, for all Tennant has shown, the accusation is just; second, a restriction of the antirealist principle apparently weaker than Tennants yields a non-ad hoc (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Otavio Bueno (2009). Fitch's Paradox and the Philosophy of Mathematics. In Joe Salerno (ed.), New Essays on the Knowability Paradox. Oxford University Press.score: 459.0
  15. Michael Dummett (2009). Fitch's Paradox of Knowability. In Joe Salerno (ed.), New Essays on the Knowability Paradox. Oxford University Press.score: 459.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Volker Halbach (2008). On a Side Effect of Solving Fitch's Paradox by Typing Knowledge. Analysis 68 (2):114 - 120.score: 450.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Samuel Alexander (2012). A Purely Epistemological Version of Fitch's Paradox. The Reasoner 6 (4):59-60.score: 450.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Doukas Kapantaïs (2013). Intuitionistic Semantics for Fitch's Paradox. In. In Vassilios Karakostas & Dennis Dieks (eds.), Epsa11 Perspectives and Foundational Problems in Philosophy of Science. Springer. 29--39.score: 450.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Jiri Raclavsky (2013). Fitch's Paradox of Knowability and Ramified Theory of Types. Organon F 20:144-165.score: 450.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Concha Martinez, Jose-Miguel SAGüILLO & Javier Vilanova (1997). Fitch's Problem and the Knowability Paradox: Logical and Philosophical Remarks'. Logica Trianguli 1:73-91.score: 435.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Paolo Maffezioli, Alberto Naibo & Sara Negri (2013). The Church–Fitch Knowability Paradox in the Light of Structural Proof Theory. Synthese 190 (14):2677-2716.score: 426.0
    Anti-realist epistemic conceptions of truth imply what is called the knowability principle: All truths are possibly known. The principle can be formalized in a bimodal propositional logic, with an alethic modality ${\diamondsuit}$ and an epistemic modality ${\mathcal{K}}$ , by the axiom scheme ${A \supset \diamondsuit \mathcal{K} A}$ (KP). The use of classical logic and minimal assumptions about the two modalities lead to the paradoxical conclusion that all truths are known, ${A \supset \mathcal{K} A}$ (OP). A Gentzen-style reconstruction of the Church–Fitch (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Susan Rogerson (2007). Natural Deduction and Curry's Paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (2):155 - 179.score: 381.0
    Curry's paradox, sometimes described as a general version of the better known Russell's paradox, has intrigued logicians for some time. This paper examines the paradox in a natural deduction setting and critically examines some proposed restrictions to the logic by Fitch and Prawitz. We then offer a tentative counterexample to a conjecture by Tennant proposing a criterion for what is to count as a genuine paradox.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Seiki Akama (1996). Curry's Paradox in Contractionless Constructive Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25 (2):135 - 150.score: 381.0
    We propose contractionless constructive logic which is obtained from Nelson's constructive logic by deleting contractions. We discuss the consistency of a naive set theory based on the proposed logic in relation to Curry's paradox. The philosophical significance of contractionless constructive logic is also argued in comparison with Fitch's and Prawitz's systems.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Alexander Paseau (2008). Fitch's Argument and Typing Knowledge. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 49 (2):153-176.score: 324.0
    Fitch's argument purports to show that if all truths are knowable then all truths are known. The argument exploits the fact that the knowledge predicate or operator is untyped and may thus apply to sentences containing itself. This article outlines a response to Fitch's argument based on the idea that knowledge is typed. The first part of the article outlines the philosophical motivation for the view, comparing it to the motivation behind typing truth. The second, formal part presents (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Michael Fara (2010). Knowability and the Capacity to Know. Synthese 173 (1):53 - 73.score: 270.0
    This paper presents a generalized form of Fitch's paradox of knowability, with the aim of showing that the questions it raises are not peculiar to the topics of knowledge, belief, or other epistemic notions. Drawing lessons from the generalization, the paper offers a solution to Fitch's paradox that exploits an understanding of modal talk about what could be known in terms of capacities to know. It is argued that, in rare cases, one might have the capacity (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Wesley H. Holliday (forthcoming). Epistemic Logic and Epistemology. In Sven Ove Hansson Vincent F. Hendricks (ed.), Handbook of Formal Philosophy. Springer.score: 270.0
    This chapter provides a brief introduction to propositional epistemic logic and its applications to epistemology. No previous exposure to epistemic logic is assumed. Epistemic-logical topics discussed include the language and semantics of basic epistemic logic, multi-agent epistemic logic, combined epistemic-doxastic logic, and a glimpse of dynamic epistemic logic. Epistemological topics discussed include Moore-paradoxical phenomena, the surprise exam paradox, logical omniscience and epistemic closure, formalized theories of knowledge, debates about higher-order knowledge, and issues of knowability raised by Fitch’s paradox. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Neil Kennedy (2014). Defending the Possibility of Knowledge. Journal of Philosophical Logic 43 (2-3):579-601.score: 270.0
    In this paper, I propose a solution to Fitch’s paradox that draws on ideas from Edgington (Mind 94:557–568, 1985), Rabinowicz and Segerberg (1994) and Kvanvig (Noûs 29:481–500, 1995). After examining the solution strategies of these authors, I will defend the view, initially proposed by Kvanvig, according to which the derivation of the paradox violates a crucial constraint on quantifier instantiation. The constraint states that non-rigid expressions cannot be substituted into modal positions. We will introduce a slightly modified syntax (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Fredrik Stjernberg (2009). Restricting Factiveness. Philosophical Studies 146 (1):29 - 48.score: 264.0
    In discussions of Fitch’s paradox, it is usually assumed without further argument that knowledge is factive, that if a subject knows that p, then p is true. It is argued that this common assumption is not as well-founded as it should be, and that there in fact are certain reasons to be suspicious of the unrestricted version of the factiveness claim. There are two kinds of reason for this suspicion. One is that unrestricted factiveness leads to paradoxes and unexpected (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Salvatore Florio & Julien Murzi (2009). The Paradox of Idealization. Analysis 69 (3):461-469.score: 261.0
    A well-known proof by Alonzo Church, first published in 1963 by Frederic Fitch, purports to show that all truths are knowable only if all truths are known. This is the Paradox of Knowability. If we take it, quite plausibly, that we are not omniscient, the proof appears to undermine metaphysical doctrines committed to the knowability of truth, such as semantic anti-realism. Since its rediscovery by Hart and McGinn ( 1976), many solutions to the paradox have been offered. In (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Martin Fischer (2013). Some Remarks on Restricting the Knowability Principle. Synthese 190 (1):63-88.score: 261.0
    The Fitch paradox poses a serious challenge for anti-realism. This paper investigates the option for an anti-realist to answer the challenge by restricting the knowability principle. Based on a critical discussion of Dummett's and Tennant's suggestions for a restriction desiderata for a principled solution are developed. In the second part of the paper a different restriction is proposed. The proposal uses the notion of uniform formulas and diagnoses the problem arising in the case of Moore sentences in the different (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Richard Routley (2010). Necessary Limits to Knowledge: Unknowable Truths. Synthese 173 (1):107 - 122.score: 222.0
    The paper seeks a perfectly general argument regarding the non-contingent limits to any (human or non-human) knowledge. After expressing disappointment with the history of philosophy on this score, an argument is grounded in Fitch’s proof, which demonstrates the unknowability of some truths. The necessity of this unknowability is then defended by arguing for the necessity of Fitch’s premise—viz., there this is in fact some ignorance.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. 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.score: 222.0
    Fitch showed that not every true proposition can be known in due time; in other words, that not every proposition is knowable. Moore showed that certain propositions cannot be consistently believed. A more recent dynamic phrasing of Moore-sentences is that not all propositions are known after their announcement, i.e., not every proposition is successful. Fitch's and Moore's results are related, as they equally apply to standard notions of knowledge and belief (S 5 and KD45, respectively). If we interpret ‘successful’ (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Alonzo Church (2009). Referee Reports on Fitch's "Definition of Value". In Joe Salerno (ed.), New Essays on the Knowability Paradox. Oxford University Press. 13--20.score: 219.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Bernhard Weiss (2012). Perspectives and the World. Topoi 31 (1):27-35.score: 189.0
    In this paper I consider metaphysical positions which I label as ‘perspectival’. A perspectivalist believes that some portion of reality cannot extend beyond what an appropriately characterised investigator or investigators can (in some sense) reveal about it. So a perspectivalist will be drawn to claim that a portion of reality is, in some sense, knowable. Many such positions appear to founder on the paradox of knowability. I aim to offer a solution to that paradox which can be adopted (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Boudewijn de Bruin (2008). Epistemic Logic and Epistemology. In Vincent F. Hendricks & Duncan Pritchard (eds.), New Waves in Epistemology. Palgrave Macmillan.score: 171.0
    This paper contributes to an increasing literature strengthening the connection between epistemic logic and epistemology (Van Benthem, Hendricks). I give a survey of the most important applications of epistemic logic in epistemology. I show how it is used in the history of philosophy (Steiner's reconstruction of Descartes' sceptical argument), in solutions to Moore's paradox (Hintikka), in discussions about the relation between knowledge and belief (Lenzen) and in an alleged refutation of verificationism (Fitch) and I examine an early argument about (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Eric Thomas Updike (2012). Abstraction in Fitch's Basic Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 33 (3):215-243.score: 168.0
    Fitch's basic logic is an untyped illative combinatory logic with unrestricted principles of abstraction effecting a type collapse between properties (or concepts) and individual elements of an abstract syntax. Fitch does not work axiomatically and the abstraction operation is not a primitive feature of the inductive clauses defining the logic. Fitch's proof that basic logic has unlimited abstraction is not clear and his proof contains a number of errors that have so far gone undetected. This paper corrects these (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Joe Salerno (ed.) (2009). New Essays on the Knowability Paradox. Oxford University Press.score: 159.0
    This collection assembles Church's referee reports, Fitch's 1963 paper, and nineteen new papers on the knowability paradox.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. John W. Lango (2002). Fitch's Method and Whitehead's Metaphysics. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 38 (4):581 - 603.score: 146.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Bernard Linsky (1994). G. W. Fitch's Paleontology. Philosophical Studies 73 (2-3):189 - 193.score: 140.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Richmond H. Thomason (1967). A Decision Procedure for Fitch's Propositional Calculus. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 8 (1-2):101-117.score: 140.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. M. W. Bunder & Jonathan P. Seldin (1978). Some Anomalies in Fitch's System QD. Journal of Symbolic Logic 43 (2):247-249.score: 140.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. J. J. MacIntosh (1984). Fitch's Factives. Analysis 44 (4):153 - 158.score: 140.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Charles A. Baylis (1948). Critical Comments on Professor Fitch's Article "on God and Immortality". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8 (4):694-697.score: 140.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Earl W. Spurgin (2006). What Was Wrong with Abercrombie & Fitch's “Magalog”?1. Business and Society Review 111 (4):387-408.score: 140.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Seiki Akama & Sadaaki Miyamoto (2008). Curry and Fitch on Paradox. Logique Et Analyse 203:271-283.score: 140.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. David F. Siemens (1961). An Extension of “Fitch's Rules”. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 7 (11‐14):199-204.score: 140.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Elia Zardini, 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.score: 135.0
    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 (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Massimiliano Carrara & Davide Fassio, The Knowability Paradox, Perfectibility of Science and Reductionism.score: 135.0
    A logical argument known as Fitch’s Paradox of Knowability, starting from the assumption that every truth is knowable, leads to the consequence that every truth is also actually known. Then, given the ordinary fact that some true propositions are not actually known, it concludes, by modus tollens, that there are unknowable truths. The main literature on the topic has been focusing on the threat the argument poses to the so called semantic anti-realist theories, which aim to epistemically characterize the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Christopher Gregory Weaver (2013). A Church-Fitch Proof for the Universality of Causation. Synthese 190 (14):2749-2772.score: 132.0
    In an attempt to improve upon Alexander Pruss’s work (The principle of sufficient reason: A reassessment, pp. 240–248, 2006), I (Weaver, Synthese 184(3):299–317, 2012) have argued that if all purely contingent events could be caused and something like a Lewisian analysis of causation is true (per, Lewis’s, Causation as influence, reprinted in: Collins, Hall and paul. Causation and counterfactuals, 2004), then all purely contingent events have causes. I dubbed the derivation of the universality of causation the “Lewisian argument”. The Lewisian (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 149