Is there anything paradoxical about statements that are true but unbelievable?
  • Rupert
    2
    Imagine the following scenario. You pass a horsebox parked by the road. The driver tells you that the horsebox contains either a horse or a donkey or a unicorn. You know that unicorns do not exist and therefore you do not believe that the driver is telling the truth. The driver opens the door and emerges with a horse.

    Should you conclude that the driver was telling the truth? Were you right to disbelieve the driver?

    My instinct is that this is an elementary philosphical problem, but I've not so far succeeded in finding any treatment of this question. I'd be extremely grateful if someone could point me in the right direction.

    The reason I'm interested is that I've read suggestions that a statement that is true but unbelievable is paradoxical. It seems to me that it's so easy to concoct such a statement that it cannot be regarded as paradoxical. Do people agree?
    Rupert Options
  • Deleted User
    0
    This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
    Deleted User Options
  • SophistiCat
    2.3k
    My instinct is that this is an elementary philosphical problem, but I've not so far succeeded in finding any treatment of this question. — Rupert

    It's either an elementary misunderstanding of disjunction or a lack of the sense of humor.
    SophistiCat Options
  • Rupert
    2
    Thank you both for taking the trouble to reply. My apologies for not expressing my question more clearly. I will have another go:

    Statement 1: the box contains a horse or a donkey or a cow
    Statement 2: the box contains a horse or a donkey or a unicorn

    On the basis that the box contains a horse, both statements are true.

    But the presence of an impossible item in statement 2 gives it a different status from statement 1. Is there some conventional terminology that is used to distinguish the different statuses of the two statements?
    Rupert Options
  • SophistiCat
    2.3k
    ↪Rupert
    In natural language, as opposed to formal logic, when we say "it's either this or that" we usually imply that all presented alternatives are live possibilities. Interpreted this way, the statement mentioning a unicorn is simply false, since (we assume) a unicorn is never a live possibility. But if you interpret "or" as a formal disjunction, then there is nothing wrong with the statement. It's just not how people usually talk (if they are being serious*). So I think your unease comes from conflating these two senses of "or."

    * Imagine a scene: you and a friend come across a horsebox and wonder who is inside: a horse, a cow, a donkey... You decide to have a friendly wager: you bet on a cow and your friend bets on a horse. At this point you both clearly hear neighing from inside the box. Your friend smirks and says: "Well, it's either a horse or a unicorn!"
    SophistiCat Options
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    ↪Rupert
    True but unbelievable! I gues we need to view this sort of belief-conditions through a wider time window. Take 500 years for instance. In the year 1500 AD mobile phones would be unbelievable but they were true in the year 2000 AD.
    TheMadFool Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories