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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The proposition k is both known and unknown, which is a contradiction.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Assume k is known.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Knowledge entails truth, so if k is known, k is true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.k asserts that k is unknown.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Self-referential propositions about their own epistemic status generate genuine paradox, as Kaplan and Montague showed for modalized self-reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.No revision of classical logic dissolves this contradiction without either abandoning knowledge-factivity or prohibiting legitimate epistemic propositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Williamson's knowledge-first epistemology confirms factivity as non-negotiable, so the contradiction cannot be escaped by weakening the knowledge operator.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fitch's 1963 proof demonstrates that the conjunction K(p & ~Kp) distributes to Kp & K~Kp via the factivity and distribution of knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.K~Kp entails ~Kp by factivity, so Kp & ~Kp follows necessarily, making the contradiction a formal theorem, not a mere assumption.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.