Solutions to the Knower Paradox in the Light of Haack’s Criteria

The knower paradox states that the statement ‘We know that this statement is false’ leads to inconsistency. This article presents a fresh look at this paradox and some well-known solutions from the literature. Paul Égré discusses three possible solutions that modal provability logic provides for the paradox by surveying and comparing three different provability interpretations of modality, originally described by Skyrms, Anderson, and Solovay. In this article, some background is explained to clarify Égré’s solutions, all three of which hinge on intricacies of provability logic and its arithmetical interpretations. To check whether Égré’s solutions are satisfactory, we use the criteria for solutions to paradoxes defined by Susan Haack and we propose some refinements of them. This article aims to describe to what extent the knower paradox can be solved using provability logic and to what extent the solutions proposed in the literature satisfy Haack’s criteria. Finally, the article offers some reflections on the relation between knowledge, proof, and provability, as inspired by the knower paradox and its solutions.</p

Provability logic meets the knower paradox

The knower paradox states that the statement `We know that this statement is false' leads to inconsistency. This article presents a fresh look at this paradox and some well-known solutions from the literature. Paul Egré discusses three possible solutions that modal provability logic provides for the paradox by surveying and comparing three different provability interpretations of modality, including one by Solovay. To check whether this solution is satisfactory, we use the criteria for solutions to paradoxes defined by Susan Haack. This extended abstract aims to describe to what extent the knower paradox can be solved using provability logic and to what extent a solution proposed in the literature satisfies Haack's criteria. Finally, the extended offers some reflections on the relation between knowledge, proof, and provability, as inspired by the knower paradox

Three solutions to the knower paradox

National audienceIn this paper I shall present three solutions to the Knower Paradox which, despite important points in common, differ in several respects. The first solution, proposed by C. A. Anderson [1] is a hierarchical solution, developed in the framework of first-order arithmetic. However I will try to show that this solution is based on an incorrect argument. The second solution, inspired by a book of R.M. Smullyan [14], is developed in the framework of modal logic and it is based on the idea of interpreting one of the basic systems of the modal logic of provability in an epistemic way. I shall give arguments in support of this solution. The third solution, proposed by P. Egrèé [8] attempts to connect the first and the second solutions. I will show that this attempt fails for philosophical and formal reasons

Variations on a Montagovian theme

What are the objects of knowledge, belief, probability, apriority or analyticity? For at least some of these properties, it seems plausible that the objects are sentences, or sentence-like entities. However, results from mathematical logic indicate that sentential properties are subject to severe formal limitations. After surveying these results, I argue that they are more problematic than often assumed, that they can be avoided by taking the objects of the relevant property to be coarse-grained (“sets of worlds”) propositions, and that all this has little to do with the choice between operators and predicates

Non‐Classical Knowledge

The Knower paradox purports to place surprising a priori limitations on what we can know. According to orthodoxy, it shows that we need to abandon one of three plausible and widely-held ideas: that knowledge is factive, that we can know that knowledge is factive, and that we can use logical/mathematical reasoning to extend our knowledge via very weak single-premise closure principles. I argue that classical logic, not any of these epistemic principles, is the culprit. I develop a consistent theory validating all these principles by combining Hartry Field's theory of truth with a modal enrichment developed for a different purpose by Michael Caie. The only casualty is classical logic: the theory avoids paradox by using a weaker-than-classical K3 logic. I then assess the philosophical merits of this approach. I argue that, unlike the traditional semantic paradoxes involving extensional notions like truth, its plausibility depends on the way in which sentences are referred to--whether in natural languages via direct sentential reference, or in mathematical theories via indirect sentential reference by Gödel coding. In particular, I argue that from the perspective of natural language, my non-classical treatment of knowledge as a predicate is plausible, while from the perspective of mathematical theories, its plausibility depends on unresolved questions about the limits of our idealized deductive capacities