Goodman's “Grue” Argument in Historical Perspective

Abstract The talk is mainly defensive. I won’t offer positive accounts of the “paradoxical” cases I will discuss (but, see “Extras”). I’ll begin with Harman’s defense of classical deductive logic against certain (epistemological) “relevantist” arguments
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified (fix it)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 5,679
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Only published papers are available at libraries

    Similar books and articles
    Branden Fitelson (2008). Goodman's “New Riddle”. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (6).
    C. A. Hooker (1968). Goodman, 'Grue' and Hempel. Philosophy of Science 35 (3):232-247.
    Gary Sollazzo (1972). Barker and Achinstein on Goodman. Philosophical Studies 23 (1-2):91 - 97.
    Mary Kate McGowan (2002). Gruesome Connections. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (206):21-33.
    John Moreland (1976). On Projecting Grue. Philosophy of Science 43 (3):363-377.
    R. G. Swinburne (1968). Grue. Analysis 28 (4):123 - 128.
    Marc Lange (1994). Earman on the Projectibility of Grue. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:87 - 95.

    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2011-06-22

    Total downloads

    25 ( #49,575 of 549,070 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    2 ( #37,252 of 549,070 )

    How can I increase my downloads?


    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.

    Other forums