# Re: Fitch's paradox and OWA

Date: 1 Jan 2010 15:00:36 -0800

Message-ID: <hhluqk01bhg_at_drn.newsguy.com>

Jesse F. Hughes says...

>Suppose that p is true, but I don't know it. Then p & ~Kp is true.

*>But surely, I could not know p & ~Kp. That is, I couldn't know "p is
**>true, but I don't know that p is true."
**>
**>After all, if I know that conjunction, then I know that p is true, so
**>how could I know that I don't know that p is true?
**>
**>The argument seems perfectly clear to me, both formally and
**>informally.
*

I agree. My point is not about the proof, it's about the "knowability principle" that if something is true, then it is possible that it is knowable. That's not a reasonable thing to assume unless we either restrict what sort of propositions we are talking about, or be more explicit about *who* knows what.

I don't have any problem with the proof of Fitch's paradox. It's a valid proof, but I take it as evidence for rejecting the knowability principle.

-- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NYReceived on Sat Jan 02 2010 - 00:00:36 CET