Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Goodman’s account of the ‘grue’ paradox stands at a crossroads in the history of twentieth century epistemology. Published in 1954, Fact, Fiction, and Forecast is a reaction to the logical empiricist views that held sway in the first half of the last century and anticipates many of the conventionalist and/or relativist moves popular throughout the second half. Through his evaluation of Hume’s problem of induction, as well as his own novel reformulation of it, Goodman comes to reject a number of the fundamental parts of logical empiricism. In particular, Goodman argues that the formal epistemic methods the logical empiricists wanted to rely upon are insufficient. This leads him to turn towards conventionalism, which is the basis of his rejection of the objective view of knowledge. In his conventionalism he is a precursor of writers such as Hanson, Kuhn and Feyerabend, who, seeing the inadequacy of formalism, sought to fill the gaps it left in epistemic methodology with scientific values, tacit knowledge and linguistic practices. Making use of Susan Haack’s distinction between three different kinds of foundationalism, we analyse Goodman’s position and its relation to the views of the logical empiricists. The two are reflections of each other in that, where the logical empiricists are foundationalists in their views on empirical evidence, methods used and objective criteria of justification, Goodman consistently opts for the corresponding coherentist options. As it turns out, this choice of options makes it impossible for Goodman to deal with the very objections he raises against the logical empiricists. In adding the new problem of induction to the old one, Goodman adds a problem which clearly can not be resolved by a purely syntactic solution. The charge Goodman raises is that logical empiricists cannot determine which predictions are sound and which are not. We argue that his method of identifying acceptable predictions based on the use of entrenchment is, in the end, arbitrary and only postpones the underlying problem..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Daniel Cohnitz (2009). The Unity of Goodman's Thought. In G. Ernst, J. Steinbrenner & O. Scholz (eds.), From Logic to Art: Themes from Nelson Goodman. Ontos.
Branden Fitelson (2008). Goodman's "New Riddle". Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (6):613 - 643.
Richard Creath (1995). Are Dinosaurs Extinct? Foundations of Science 1 (2):285-297.
Marcus Rossberg & Daniel Cohnitz (2009). Logical Consequence for Nominalists. Theoria. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 24 (2):147-168.
Jared Bates (2005). The Old Problem of Induction and the New Reflective Equilibrium. Dialectica 59 (3):347–356.
Robert Kowalenko (2012). Reply to Israel on the New Riddle of Induction. Philosophia 40 (3):549-552.
Matti Eklund (2000). The Aims of Logical Empiricism As a Philosophy of Science. Acta Analytica 15 (25):137-59.
Józef Misiek (1996). Kryzys w metodologii - przyczyny choroby i rokowania na przyszłość. Filozofia Nauki 2.
Stephen P. Stich & Richard E. Nisbett (1980). Justification and the Psychology of Human Reasoning. Philosophy of Science 47 (2):188-202.
Daniel Cohnitz (2009). Logical Consequence for Nominalists. Theoria 24 (2):147-168.
Jennifer Nagel (2006). Empiricism. In Sarkar Pfeifer (ed.), The Philosophy of Science. Routledge.
Daniel Cohnitz & Marcus Rossberg (2009). Logical Consequence for Nominalists. Theoria 24 (2):147-168.
Stephen Hetherington (2001). Why There Need Not Be Any Grue Problem About Inductive Inference as Such. Philosophy 76 (1):127-136.
Peter Gärdenfors (1990). Induction, Conceptual Spaces and AI. Philosophy of Science 57 (1):78-95.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads4 ( #189,087 of 738,393 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,269 of 738,393 )
How can I increase my downloads?