Document Type


Publication Date


Published In

Acta Analytica


This paper argues that three plausible principles are mutually inconsistent: (KA) One ought to assert only what one knows; (AP) If it is proper to assert some proposition q, then it is, barring special and not very common circumstances, proper to assert any proposition p from which q has been competently inferred; and (AKN) Some propositions are both properly assertible and known by competent inference from propositions which one does not know. Each pair of two principles constitutes an argument against the remaining principle, but which principle should one drop?


This work is a pre-print freely available courtesy of the author.

The final publication version can be freely accessed courtesy of Springer Nature's SharedIt service.

Included in

Philosophy Commons