  Church remarks in effect that step 2, the distribution of \(K\) over a conjunction, is an instance of the doubtful principle that the logical consequences of a known proposition are also known. He also notes that there are “fools” who would believe a conjunction and yet not believe its conjuncts. But could there be such foolishness as to count a conjunction as known and yet not count its conjuncts as such? Most find this highly implausible. Finally, Church suggests that his argument runs afoul of type restrictions. Linsky, in his (2009), gives a lucid account of the application of Church’s 1976 version of RTT to the knowability paradox. See also the entry on Fitch’s Paradox of Knowability.