Philosophical Studies

, Volume 105, Issue 3, pp 237–250 | Cite as

A New Solution to Moore's Paradox

  • Anthony S. Gillies

Abstract

Moore's paradox pits our intuitions about semantic oddnessagainst the concept of truth-functional consistency. Most solutions tothe problem proceed by explaining away our intuitions. But``consistency'' is a theory-laden concept, having different contours indifferent semantic theories. Truth-functional consistency is appropriateonly if the semantic theory we are using identifies meaning withtruth-conditions. I argue that such a framework is not appropriate whenit comes to analzying epistemic modality. I show that a theory whichaccounts for a wide variety of semantic data about epistemic modals(Update Semantics) buys us a solution to Moore's paradox as a corollary.It turns out that Moorean propositions, when looked at through the lenseof an appropriate semantic theory, are inconsistent after all.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Beaver, D. (1993): ‘Two Birds and One Stone,’ in H. Kamp (ed.), Presupposition, DYANA Report 2.2.A (Center for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh).Google Scholar
  2. Benthem, J. van (1991): Language in Action, Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. DeRose, K. (1991): ‘Epistemic Possibilities,’ Philosophical Review 100(4), 581–605.Google Scholar
  4. Gerbrandy, J. and Groenevald, W. (1997): ‘Reasoning About Information Change,’ Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6, 147–169.Google Scholar
  5. Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. and Veltman, F. (1996): ‘Coreference and Modality,’ in S. Lappin (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 179–214.Google Scholar
  6. Hacking, I. (1967): ‘Possibility’, Philosophical Review76, 143–68.Google Scholar
  7. Hintikka, J. (1962): Knowing and Belief, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Jones, O. R. (1991): ‘Moore's Paradox, Assertion and Knowledge,’ Analysis 51, 183–186.Google Scholar
  9. Kratzer, A. (1977): ‘What ‘Must’ and ‘Can’ Must and Can Mean,’ Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 337–355.Google Scholar
  10. Martinich, A.P. (1980): ‘Conversational Maxims and Some Philosophical Problems,’ Philosophical Quarterly 30, 215–228.Google Scholar
  11. Veltman, F. (1990): ‘Defaults in Update Semantics,’ in H. Kamp (ed.), Conditionals, Defaults, and Belief Revision, DYANA Report 2.5.A (Center for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh).Google Scholar
  12. Veltman, F. (1996): ‘Defaults in Update Semantics,’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 25, 221–261.Google Scholar
  13. Welbourne, M. (1992): ‘More on Moore,’ Analysis 52, 237–241. Department of Philosophy University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 USA email: agillies@u.arizona.edu Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony S. Gillies
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations