 Concerning the first, Williamson (2000: 253) claims that an utterance of  (26)  is just as odd as any ordinary Moorean sentence involving belief, such as  (25)  above. The oddity of  (26)  can be explained by appeal to the knowledge norm, and this is taken by supporters of  (KNA)  to be a datum in its favor. By  (KNA),  (26) is proper only if the speaker knows that the proposition expressed by  (26)  is true. Since knowledge distributes over conjunction, this means that the speaker should know that it is raining and also that she does not know that it is raining. Since knowledge is factive, this generates a contradiction: it follows that an assertion of  (26)  cannot be proper, and this explains its oddity.