I've heard brief mentions of the discussion of what it means to "know" something.

However, to me, the mistake seems to be assuming that because we have a word "know", that it maps cleanly to a relevant philosophical concept (that fulfils all the expectations of "something you can reason with", "something you have good reason to think true", etc, etc). It seems more likely that there is (at best) a number of overlapping concepts that "know" describes well when they coincide, but people would disagree about when they don't.

So I realise this is one of the edge cases, but I'm not sure the answer is "yes" or "no"... :)