The Paradox of the Knower was originally presented by Kaplan and Montague [26] as a puzzle about the everyday notion of knowledge in the face of self-reference. The paradox shows that any theory extending Robinson arithmetic with a predicate K satisfying the factivity axiom K → A as well as a few other epistemically plausible principles is inconsistent. After surveying the background of the paradox, we will focus on a recent debate about the role of epistemic closure principles in the (...) Knower. We will suggest this debate sheds new light on the concept of knowledge which is at issue in the paradox – i.e. is it a “thin” notion divorced from concepts such as evidence or justification, or is it a “thick” notion more closely resembling mathematical provability? We will argue that a number of features of the paradox suggest that the latter option is more plausible. Along the way, we will provide a reconstruction of the paradox using a quantified extension of Artemovʼs [2] Logic of Proofs, as well as a series of results linking the original formulation of the paradox to reflection principles for formal arithmetic. On this basis, we will argue that while the Knower can be understood to motivate a distinction between levels of knowledge, it does not provide a rationale for recognizing a uniform hierarchy of knowledge predicates in the manner suggested by Anderson. (shrink)

We discuss a propositional logic which combines classical reasoning with constructive reasoning, i.e., intuitionistic logic augmented with a class of propositional variables for which we postulate the decidability property. We call it intuitionistic logic with classical atoms. We introduce two hypersequent calculi for this logic. Our main results presented here are cut-elimination with the subformula property for the calculi. As corollaries, we show decidability, an extended form of the disjunction property, the existence of embedding into an intuitionistic modal logic and (...) a partial form of interpolation. (shrink)