The Goodman paradox: Three different problems and a naturalistic solution to two of them [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal for General Philosophy of Science 35 (2):351 - 370 (2004)
It is now more than 50 years that the Goodman paradox has been discussed, and many different solutions have been proposed. But so far no agreement has been reached about which is the correct solution to the paradox. In this paper, I present the naturalistic solutions to the paradox that were proposed in Quine (1969, 1974), Quine and Ullian (1970/1978), and Stemmer (1971). At the same time, I introduce a number of modifications and improvements that are needed for overcoming shortcomings of the solutions. The discussion of this improved version suggests that the Goodman paradox actually embodies three different problems; yet, one of them is not Goodman’s but Hume’s problem. The discussion also suggests that the naturalistic approach is probably the best for basing on it a theory of confirmation. Finally, I analyze one of Hume’s insights that seems to have been largely ignored. This insight shows a surprising similarity to a central feature of the naturalistic solutions.
|Keywords||Goodman paradox Hempel paradox confirmation theories subjective projectibility objective projectibility Hume’s insights naturalism|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Branden Fitelson & James Hawthorne (2010). How Bayesian Confirmation Theory Handles the Paradox of the Ravens. In Ellery Eells & James Fetzer (eds.), The Place of Probability in Science. Springer. 247--275.
Nathan Stemmer (2004). On Hetherington's Solution of the Goodman Paradox. Philosophy 79 (4):617-623.
Paul Franceschi, Une Application Des N-Univers a l'Argument de l'Apocalypse Et au Paradoxe de Goodman.
Nathan Stemmer (1975). The Goodman Paradox. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 6 (2):340-354.
Nathan Stemmer (1978). A Partial Solution to the Goodman Paradox. Philosophical Studies 34 (2):177 - 185.
Paul Franceschi (2001). A Solution to Goodman's Paradox. [Journal (on-Line/Unpaginated)].
Ingemar Nordin (2009). Technology and Goodman's Paradox. Philosophy of Science 76 (3):345-354.
Jaroslaw Pasek (1992). Prescriptive Obligation and Forrester's Paradox. Erkenntnis 37 (1):99 - 114.
Branden Fitelson & James Hawthorne (2010). How Bayesian Confirmation Theory Handles the Paradox of the Ravens. In. In Ellery Eells & James Fetzer (eds.), The Place of Probability in Science. Springer. 247--275.
Nathan Stemmer (2007). Hume's Solution of the Goodman Paradox and the Reliability Riddle (Mill's Problem). Philosophical Studies 132 (2):137 - 159.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #73,525 of 1,102,965 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #84,832 of 1,102,965 )
How can I increase my downloads?