David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 95 (1):55 - 76 (1993)
Goodman'snew riddle of induction can be characterized by the following questions: What is the difference between grue and green?; Why is the hypothesis that all emeralds are grue not lawlike?; Why is this hypothesis not confirmed by its positive instances?; and, Why is the predicate grue not projectible? I argue in favor of epistemological answers to Goodman's questions. The notions of lawlikeness, confirmation, and projectibility have to be relativized to (actual and counterfactual) epistemic situations that are determined by the available background information. In order to defend this thesis, I discuss an example that is less strange than the grue example. From the general conclusions of this discussion, it follows that grue is not projectible in the actual epistemic situation, but it is projectible in certain counterfactual epistemic situations.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Nelson Goodman (1983). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Harvard University Press.
W. V. Quine (1969). Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. Columbia University Press.
W. V. Quine (1970). The Web of Belief. New York,Random House.
Nelson Goodman (1972). Problems and Projects. Indianapolis,Bobbs-Merrill.
R. M. Sainsbury (1995). Paradoxes. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Rami Israel (2006). Projectibility and Explainability or How to Draw a New Picture of Inductive Practices. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 37 (2):269 - 286.
Rami Israel (2007). Projectibility and Explainability or How to Draw a New Picture of Inductive Practices. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 37 (2):269-286.
Similar books and articles
Adina L. Roskies (2008). Robustness and the New Riddle Revived. Ratio 21 (2):218–230.
John D. Norton (2006). How the Formal Equivalence of Grue and Green Defeats What is New in the New Riddle of Induction. Synthese 150 (2):185 - 207.
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.
John Moreland (1976). On Projecting Grue. Philosophy of Science 43 (3):363-377.
Marc Lange (1994). Earman on the Projectibility of Grue. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:87 - 95.
John D. Norton, The Formal Equivalence of Grue and Green and How It Undoes the New Riddle of Induction.
Robert Kowalenko (2012). Reply to Israel on the New Riddle of Induction. Philosophia 40 (3):549-552.
Branden Fitelson (2008). Goodman's "New Riddle". Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (6):613 - 643.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads254 ( #8,797 of 1,792,035 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #139,057 of 1,792,035 )
How can I increase my downloads?