tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post7671179911389250024..comments2024-03-28T02:29:26.853-07:00Comments on Obscure and Confused Ideas: Moore's paradox (or something like it) in the mailUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-65393654095739009832011-05-03T23:24:00.284-07:002011-05-03T23:24:00.284-07:00Hahaha Very funny.Hahaha Very funny.homegirlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07331329191048242824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-4428395512378945642011-04-08T20:18:28.942-07:002011-04-08T20:18:28.942-07:00In your example, the statement isn't paradoxic...In your example, the statement isn't paradoxical, it's just false, right? That is, it seems like we have someone, call him S1, asserting that p and then another person, call her S2, asserting that S1 does not assert that p. What S2 asserts isn't paradoxical, it's just false. Or am I missing something?Jonathan Livengoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11361186505929270798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-71360594100071113022011-04-08T13:38:57.332-07:002011-04-08T13:38:57.332-07:00So let's replace 'authorize' with '...So let's replace 'authorize' with 'believe.'<br /><br />But then this case is more like me playing a video of you (perhaps wearing a name tag) saying "It's raining," followed by me immediately saying 'No one named Livengood believes it's raining.' (Barack Obama is clearly a candidate.)Greg Frost-Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08563986984421570652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-30988576584334594162011-04-08T10:29:28.862-07:002011-04-08T10:29:28.862-07:00Nice. I wasn't sure if the converse worked or...Nice. I wasn't sure if the converse worked or not, but your example is convincing. I agree that there is something odd about the card, but I really don't know what it is.<br /><br />I wonder a bit how the triple -- authorized, unauthorized, disavowed (anti-authorized?) -- compares with the triple -- believed, not-believed, disbelieved (doubted). My suspicion is that not-believed is more powerful in Moore-like cases than not-authorized is.<br /><br />There is also the further wrinkle that the card is published by a third party, and it is that third party that is saying the card is not authorized by Obama (or any other candidate). Even if it were a Moore-like case, we wouldn't get a paradox with a third-person statement. It's perfectly fine, for example, for me to say, "It's raining, but Kerrith doesn't believe it."Jonathan Livengoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11361186505929270798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-5371065743241235212011-04-08T05:15:15.415-07:002011-04-08T05:15:15.415-07:00Yes, that definitely seems right to me. And the c...Yes, that definitely seems right to me. And the converse direction doesn't work either: for example, if the CIA director was engaged in some sort of disinformation campaign, the director could authorize the communication of P, even if she would never utter an unembedded/ stand-alone token of P.<br /><br />But there's *still* something weird about the card I got in the mail -- unless someone is engaging in a disinformation campaign... and admitting it publicly on the other side of the disinformation.Greg Frost-Arnoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08563986984421570652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14117162.post-41471975625976351082011-04-07T20:43:24.418-07:002011-04-07T20:43:24.418-07:00They seem pretty different to me. If I do not aut...They seem pretty different to me. If I do not authorize the communication that p, it is not necessarily the case that I do not <em>endorse</em> the claim that p. I might not want anyone to know that I endorse p, or I might not think it is appropriate to say out loud that I endorse p, or whatever.<br /><br />Compare: (1) the CIA chief says, "It is the case that bin Laden is alive and in hiding, but I don't believe it" and (2) the CIA chief says, "It is the case that bin Laden is alive and in hiding, but I don't authorize communicating it."<br /><br />(1) looks incoherent. (2) does not. I think there are circumstances in which (2) would be incoherent, but there are also circumstances in which (2) would be appropriate -- for example, in a briefing with intelligence officers before they are interviewed by members of the press.Jonathan Livengoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11361186505929270798noreply@blogger.com