z-logo
Premium
Is Every Truth Knowable? Reply to Williamson
Author(s) -
Tennant Neil
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
ratio
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.475
H-Index - 29
eISSN - 1467-9329
pISSN - 0034-0006
DOI - 10.1111/1467-9329.00162
Subject(s) - proposition , argument (complex analysis) , philosophy , epistemology , fallacy , order (exchange) , criticism , law , economics , political science , chemistry , biochemistry , finance
This paper addresses an objection raised by Timothy Williamson to the ‘restriction strategy’ that I proposed, in The Taming of The True , in order to deal with the Fitch paradox. Williamson provides a newversion of a Fitch‐style argument that purports to show that even the restricted principle of knowability suffers the same fate as the unrestricted one. I show here that the new argument is fallacious. The source of the fallacy is a misunderstanding of the condition used in stating the restricted knowability principle. I also rebut WilliamsonÕs criticism of my argument for the claim that any proposition of the form ‘it is known thatφ’ is decidable if φ is decidable

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom