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.
