Famously, the Church–Fitch paradox of knowability is a deductive argument from the thesis that all truths are knowable to the conclusion that all truths are known. In this argument, knowability is analyzed in terms of having the possibility to know. Several philosophers have objected to this analysis, because it turns knowability into a nonfactive notion. In addition, they claim that, if the knowability thesis is reformulated with the help of factive concepts of knowability, then omniscience can be avoided. In this article we will look closer at two proposals along these lines (Edgington in Mind 94(376):557–568, 1985; Fuhrmann in Synthese 191(7):1627–1648, 2014a), because there are formal models available for each. It will be argued that, even though the problem of omniscience can be averted, the problem of possible or potential omniscience cannot: there is an accessible state at which all (actual) truths are known. Furthermore, it will be argued that possible or potential omniscience is a price that is too high to pay. Others who have proposed to solve the paradox with the help of a factive concept of knowability should take note (Fara in Synthese 173(1):53–73, 2010; Spencer in Mind 126(502):466–497, 2017).
Factive knowability Actuality Potential knowledge Knowability thesis Church–Fitch paradox of knowability Possible omniscience Potential omniscience
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Boolos, G. S., Burgess, J. P., & Jeffrey, R. C. (2003). Computability and logic (4th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1931). Die Physikalische Sprache als Universalsprache der Wissenschaft. Erkenntnis, 2(1), 432–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clercq, R., & Horsten, L. (2004). Perceptual indiscriminability: In defence of Wright’s proof. Philosophical Quarterly, 54(216), 439–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M. (1977). Elements of intuitionism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2016). Absolute provability and safe knowledge of axioms. In L. Horsten & P. Welch (Eds.), Gödel’s Disjunction: The scope and limits of mathematical knowledge (pp. 243–252). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yap, A. (2014). Idealization, epistemic logic, and epistemology. Synthese, 191(14), 3351–3366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar