Any claim about new knowledge is non-verifiable. This I define as the New Knowledge Paradox.
According to Fitch’s Knowability paradox, if every truth is knowable, then every truth is known. This is a very controversial result that has proven very difficult to ighore or dismiss. Then, according to Meno’s paradox, if we know what we already know and we do not know what we do not know, then achieving new knowledge is impossible.
Therefore, if all truths are knowable, then all truths are already known according to Fitch’s paradox and unknowable truths cannot be known by definition. According to the knowledge paradox in Meno, you can never look for something you do not know what it is. So what constitutes knew knowledge? Actually, there is no such thing and the term “new knowledge” is elusive to say the least. Science discovers truths and calling them new knowledge is useless, confusing and absurd. If a new planet in our solar system is discovered tomorrow how do we know that someone did not discovered it before but did not spoke about it or was even asked to shut up? This is what it boils down to: calling a discovery new knowledge requires also proving that. This is impossible and as a result any claim about “something that constitutes new knowledge” is non-verifiable.
This I define as the New Knowledge Paradox.