Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    If k is known, then k is both known and unknown (establis... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→It is provably the case that the full description of our knowledge includes both K(k) and ¬K(k).

    If k is known, then k is both known and unknown (established by the first argument).

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    It is known that k is unknown, which means k is known (since k asserts its own u...It is provably the case that the full description of our knowledge includes both...Therefore K(k) and ¬K(k) are both provable.

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    It is known that k is unknown, which means k is known (since k asserts...94%But k was assumed to be known, so k is both known and unknown.93%The assumption that k is known leads to a contradiction (k is both kno...92%Therefore it is known that the assumption 'k is known' is false, i.e.,...91%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: fitch-paradox
    View source passageHide passage
    Assume for the sake of argument that \(k\) is known. Then, presuming that knowledge entails truth, \(k\) is true. But \(k\) says that \(k\) is unknown. So \(k\) is unknown. Consequently, \(k\) is both known and unknown. But then our assumption (i.e., that \(k\) is known) is false, and provably so. And, granting that a proven falsehood is known to be false, it follows that it is known that \(k\) is unknown. That is to say, it is known that \(k\). But we have already shown that if it is known that

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective