Philosophy of Science 35 (3):232-247 (1968)
|Abstract||It is now commonly accepted that N. Goodman's predicate "grue" presents the theory of confirmation of C. G. Hempel (and other such theories) with grave difficulties. The precise nature and status of these "difficulties" has, however, never been made clear. In this paper it is argued that it is very unlikely that "grue" raises any formal difficulties for Hempel and appearances to the contrary are examined, rejected and an explanation of their intuitive appeal offered. However "grue" is shown to raise an informal, "over-arching" difficulty of great magnitude for all theories of confirmation, including Hempel's theory|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gary Sollazzo (1972). Barker and Achinstein on Goodman. Philosophical Studies 23 (1-2):91 - 97.
Robert Kowalenko (2012). Reply to Israel on the New Riddle of Induction. Philosophia 40 (3):549-552.
John D. Norton, The Formal Equivalence of Grue and Green and How It Undoes the New Riddle of Induction.
R. G. Swinburne (1968). Grue. Analysis 28 (4):123 - 128.
Branden Fitelson (2008). Goodman's “New Riddle”. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (6).
John Moreland (1976). On Projecting Grue. Philosophy of Science 43 (3):363-377.
Branden Fitelson (2006). The Paradox of Confirmation. Philosophy Compass 1 (1):95–113.
Edward S. Shirley (1981). An Unnoticed Flaw in Barker and Achinstein's Solution to Goodman's New Riddle of Induction. Philosophy of Science 48 (4):611-617.
Rosemarie Rheinwald (1993). An Epistemic Solution to Goodman's New Riddle of Induction. Synthese 95 (1):55 - 76.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #83,117 of 549,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,722 of 549,087 )
How can I increase my downloads?