On the basis of arguments showing that none of the most influential analyses of Moore's paradox yields a successful resolution of the problem, a new analysis of it is offered. It is argued that, in attempting to render verdicts of either inconsistency or self-contradiction or self-refutation, those analyses have all failed to satisfactorily explain why a Moore-paradoxical proposition is such that it cannot be rationally believed. According to the proposed solution put forward here, a Moore-paradoxical proposition is one for which (...) the believer can have no non-overridden evidence. The arguments for this claim make use of some of Peter Klein's views on epistemic defeasibility. It is further suggested that this proposal may have important meta-epistemological implications. (shrink)

Those of us who have followed Fred Dretske's lead with regard to epistemic closure and its impact on skepticism have been half-wrong for the last four decades. But those who have opposed our Dretskean stance, contextualists in particular, have been just wrong. We have been half-right. Dretske rightly claimed that epistemic status is not closed under logical implication. Unlike the Dretskean cases, the new counterexamples to closure offered here render every form of contextualist pro-closure maneuvering useless. But there is a (...) way of going wrong under Dretske's lead. As the paper argues, Cartesian skepticism thrives on closure failure in a way that is yet to be acknowledged in the literature. The skeptic can make do with principles which are weaker than the familiar closure principles. But I will further claim that this is only a momentary reprieve for the skeptic. As it turns out, one of the weaker principles on which a skeptical modus tollens must rest can be shown false. (shrink)

It is argued, on the basis of new counterexamples, that neither knowledge nor epistemic justification (or epistemic rationality ) can reasonably be thought to be closed under logical implication. The argument includes an attempt to reconcile the fundamental intuitions of the opposing parties in the debate.

G. E. Moore identificou uma forma surpreendente de irracionalidade epistêmica. Wittgenstein a chamou “o Paradoxo de Moore”. Nenhum deles sabia, exatamente, do que estava falando. Mas, a vasta literatura sobre o problema se encarregou de mostrar sua importância. O que, no entanto, ainda não se havia notado, com suficiente clareza, é que o paradoxo está fortemente conectado a alguns dos debates mais fundamentais da agenda epistemológica contemporânea. Este artigo propõe uma resolução epistemológica ao problema e busca mostrar que o paradoxo (...) ameaça, de forma contundente, as teses de fecho dedutivo da racionalidade epistêmica e do conhecimento, inutilizando as manobras contextualistas pró-fecho. (shrink)