First, a brief historical trace of the developments in confirmation theory leading up to Goodman’s infamous “grue” paradox is presented. Then, Goodman’s argument is analyzed from both Hempelian and Bayesian perspectives. A guiding analogy is drawn between certain arguments against classical deductive logic, and Goodman’s “grue” argument against classical inductive logic. The upshot of this analogy is that the “New Riddle” is not as vexing as many commentators have claimed (especially, from a Bayesian inductive-logical point of view). Specifically, the analogy reveals an intimate connection between Goodman’s problem, and the “problem of old evidence”. Several other novel aspects of Goodman’s argument are also discussed (mainly, from a Bayesian perspective).
Key wordsBayesian Carnap Confirmation Goodman Grue Hempel
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Ayer, A.J.: Probability & Evidence, Macmillan, London, 1972.Google Scholar
- 2.Carnap, R.: Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1950 (second edition 1962).Google Scholar
- 3.Carnap, R.: The Continuum of Inductive Methods, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1952.Google Scholar
- 4.Earman, J.: Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
- 5.Eells, E.: Bayesian problems of old evidence, in C. Wade Savage (ed.), Scientific Theories, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. X, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1984, pp. 205–223.Google Scholar
- 7.Fitelson, B.: Likelihoodism, Bayesianism, and relational confirmation, Synthese, 2007. http://fitelson.org/synthese.pdf.
- 8.Fitelson, B.: Logical foundations of evidential support, Philosophy of Science, 2007. http://fitelson.org/psa2004.pdf.
- 9.Fumerton, R.: Metaepistemology and Skepticism, Rowman & Littlefield, Totowa, 1995.Google Scholar
- 10.Glymour, C.; Theory and Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1980.Google Scholar
- 14.Goodman, N.: Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1955.Google Scholar
- 15.Harman, G.: Change in View, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
- 21.Keynes, J.: A Treatise on Probability, Macmillan, London, 1921.Google Scholar
- 22.MacFarlane, J.: In what sense (if any) is logic normative for thought?, manuscript, 2004.Google Scholar
- 23.Maher, P.: Probability captures the logic of scientific confirmation, in C. Hitchcock (ed.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Science, Blackwell, Oxford, 2004.Google Scholar
- 25.Nicod, J.: The logical problem of induction, (1923) in Geometry and Induction, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1970.Google Scholar
- 26.Quine, W.V.O.: Natural kinds, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia U. Press, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
- 27.Sober, E.: No model, no inference: A Bayesian primer on the grue problem, in D. Stalker (ed.), Grue! The New Riddle of Induction, Open Court, Chicago, 1994.Google Scholar
- 28.Sylvan, R. and Nola, R.: Confirmation without paradoxes, in G. Schurz and G. Dorn (eds.), Advances in Scientific Philosophy, Rodopi, Amsterdam/Atlanta, 1991.Google Scholar
- 29.Williamson, T.: Knowledge and its Limits, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.Google Scholar