The Church–Fitch argument, or 'paradox' of knowability, apparently shows that, if all truths are knowable, then all truths are known. As some truths are unknown, anti-realists who hold that truths must be knowable have been at pains to block the argument. Here, I consider two such approaches: denying that knowledge distributes over conjunction, and moving to a typed logic. I argue that neither approach works. I first show that a Church–Fitch argument can be run with an assumption weaker than distribution of knowledge over conjunction. I then argue that a modified Church–Fitch argument can be constructed in a typed logic. So neither approach will help those who hold that all truths are knowable.