Factivity, consistency and knowability

Chase, James; Rush, Penelope

doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1253-3

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11 Another upshot concerns analogues of the knowability principle with non-factive operators in place of knowledge. For instance, Mackie (1980) and Chase & Rush (2018) discuss analogues of the knowability principle involving justification and verification, Edgington (1985Edgington ( , 2010 and Williamson (forthcoming) discuss analogues involving probability, predictability, and non-factive evidence, and Chalmers (2012) considers an analogue involving scrutability. The General Collapse Theorem shows that whether the operator in question is factive/negatively infallible does not go to the heart of the matter.…”

Section: Diagnosing Fitch's Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fitch's Paradox and Level-Bridging Principles

San¹

2020

The Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fitch’s Paradox shows that if every truth is knowable, then every truth is known. Standard diagnoses identify the factivity/negative infallibility of the knowledge operator and Moorean contradictions as the root source of the result. This paper generalises Fitch’s result to show that such diagnoses are mistaken. In place of factivity/negative infallibility, the weaker assumption of any ‘level-bridging principle’ suffices. A consequence is that the result holds for some logics in which the “Moorean contradiction” commonly thought to underlie the result is in fact consistent. This generalised result improves on the current understanding of Fitch’s result and widens the range of modalities of philosophical interest to which the result might be fruitfully applied. Along the way, we also consider a semantic explanation for Fitch’s result which answers a challenge raised by Kvanvig.

show abstract

Section: Diagnosing Fitch's Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The General Collapse Theorem also brings into question other uses to which Fitch's result has been put. For instance, Chase & Rush (2018) argue that the result poses special problems for internalists about justification. They recognise that, in place of T , D and 4 suffice for Fitch's result.…”

Section: Diagnosing Fitch's Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%