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 WilliamsonÃÂs criticism of my argument for the claim that any proposition of the form ‘it is known thatφ’ is decidable if φ is decidable