Argument analyzes knowledge's relationship with facts and presuppositions of truth and falsity.
Holton (2017) draws on the observation that no natural language has a contrafactive to argue that the object of knowledge is a fact. I fill in Holton’s argument sketch by asking how the truth and falsity presuppositions of, respectively, know and a contrafactive could arise. I defuse previous objections to his argument sketch, but, in the final section, suggest that Holton’s argument fails because presupposition triggering requires less than his argument assumes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simon Wimmer (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: