Moore's Paradox

I understand it just fine. It means that it is raining and the person doesn't believe it is raining. What don't you understand?

It's Easy just inflect the raining.
It is raining? I don't believe it.

G.E. Moore once remarked in a lecture that although it makes no sense to say, "It is raining, but I don't believe it", it can nevertheless be true that it is raining and I don't believe it. How can saying what can be true make no sense?

Try this: Describe in detail a situation in which someone would seriously and honestly say, "It is raining, but I don't believe it." If the person does not believe it is raining, the person will not say the first part: "It is raining". And if the person believes that it is raining, the person will not say the second part: "I don't believe it [is raining]." So there is no situation in which someone would seriously and honestly assert the statement, even though it may in fact be true in certain instances.

I understand it just fine. It means that it is raining and the person doesn't believe it is raining. What don't you understand?

There are sentences that are meaningful, but which cannot be asserted meaningfully.

For instance, "I am in a coma". "I am dead". "I cannot speak a word of English". And so on. Their assertion is is conflict with what is being asserted.

Oh, I understand that all right. But I would not understand what he meant when he asserted it. There are sentences that are meaningful, but which cannot be asserted meaningfully.

For instance, "I am in a coma". "I am dead". "I cannot speak a word of English". And so on. Their assertion is is conflict with what is being asserted. As I said, there is nothing puzzling about its raining and a person not believing it is raining. What is puzzling is a person asserting that it is raining, but he does not believe it is raining.

Their assertion is in conflict with a fact made apparent by their assertion. Aren't they thus false? And can a statement be both false and meaningless?

Their assertion is in conflict with a fact made apparent by their assertion. Aren't they thus false? And can a statement be both false and meaningless?

It's Easy just inflect the raining.
It is raining? I don't believe it.

G.E. Moore once remarked in a lecture that although it makes no sense to say, "It is raining, but I don't believe it", it can nevertheless be true that it is raining and I don't believe it. How can saying what can be true make no sense?

Try this: Describe in detail a situation in which someone would seriously and honestly say, "It is raining, but I don't believe it." If the person does not believe it is raining, the person will not say the first part: "It is raining". And if the person believes that it is raining, the person will not say the second part: "I don't believe it [is raining]." So there is no situation in which someone would seriously and honestly assert the statement, even though it may in fact be true in certain instances.

Try this: Describe in detail a situation in which someone would seriously and honestly say, "It is raining, but I don't believe it." If the person does not believe it is raining, the person will not say the first part: "It is raining". And if the person believes that it is raining, the person will not say the second part: "I don't believe it [is raining]." So there is no situation in which someone would seriously and honestly assert the statement, even though it may in fact be true in certain instances.

See post number three.

Perhaps the weather report says that it's raining but the speaker cant hear the sound of rain.

Not sure why it is called a paradox. I think it is simply a contradiction. Two assertions have been joined. One is an assertion that it is raining and the other an assertion that it is not raining.

The speaker could be lying when he asserts "It is raining" then owns up to the lie "I don't believe it." But it turns out it actually is raining so both statements are true.

There is missing information of some kind. Without more information, context, some story beyond just the naked statement the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of the statement cannot be decided with any finality. The rules can be set up in such a way that the statement is in fact meaningless but then the statement is meaningless by virtue of those rules and the rules themselves are the missing information that decide this.

As I pointed out, what is said could easily be true. But what is problematic is the saying of it. Just as, the proposition, "I am dead" could easily be true, but what is problematic is the saying of it. There is no missing information. It is that the truth conditions for a proposition are not the same as the conditions for the utterance of the proposition, and sometimes they may conflict; as in the instance of the example.

It's problematic but we still know what it means.

I would not know what someone meant if he said it. I know what it means to believe something that is false, if that is what you have in mind.

If you know what the phrase means, how can you not know what the other person means when they say it? They mean what you think it means.