David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 132 (2):137 - 159 (2007)
Many solutions of the Goodman paradox have been proposed but so far no agreement has been reached about which is the correct solution. However, I will not contribute here to the discussion with a new solution. Rather, I will argue that a solution has been in front of us for more than two hundred years because a careful reading of Hume’s account of inductive inferences shows that, contrary to Goodman’s opinion, it embodies a correct solution of the paradox. Moreover, the account even includes a correct answer to Mill’s question of why in some cases a single instance is sufficient for a complete induction, since Hume gives a well-supported explanation of this reliability phenomenon. The discussion also suggests that Bayesian theory by itself cannot explain this phenomenon. Finally, we will see that Hume’s explanation of the reliability phenomenon is surprisingly similar to the explanation given lately by a number of naturalistic philosophers in their discussion of the Goodman paradox.
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy of Religion Philosophy of Mind Epistemology Logic Philosophy|
|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
Robert Ackermann (1969). Sortal Predicates and Confirmation. Philosophical Studies 20 (1-2):1 - 4.
Rudolf Carnap (1947). On the Application of Inductive Logic. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 8 (1):133-148.
Nelson Goodman (1983). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Harvard University Press.
Nelson Goodman (1972). Problems and Projects. Indianapolis,Bobbs-Merrill.
Stephen Hetherington (2001). Why There Need Not Be Any Grue Problem About Inductive Inference as Such. Philosophy 76 (1):127-136.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Daniel Steel (2011). On Not Changing the Problem: A Reply to Howson. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (3):285 - 291.
Erik J. Wielenberg (2001). The New Paradox of the Stone Revisited. Faith and Philosophy 18 (2):261-268.
Roger Clarke (2010). “The Ravens Paradox” is a Misnomer. Synthese 175 (3):427-440.
Adina L. Roskies (2008). Robustness and the New Riddle Revived. Ratio 21 (2):218–230.
Paul Franceschi (2001). A Solution to Goodman's Paradox. [Journal (on-Line/Unpaginated)].
Branden Fitelson (2008). Goodman's "New Riddle". Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (6):613 - 643.
Nathan Stemmer (1975). The Goodman Paradox. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 6 (2):340-354.
Nathan Stemmer (2004). On Hetherington's Solution of the Goodman Paradox. Philosophy 79 (4):617-623.
Nathan Stemmer (2004). The Goodman Paradox: Three Different Problems and a Naturalistic Solution to Two of Them. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 35 (2):351 - 370.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads46 ( #44,595 of 1,692,448 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #47,729 of 1,692,448 )
How can I increase my downloads?