Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 613–643 | Cite as

Goodman’s “New Riddle”

Article

Abstract

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 words

Bayesian Carnap Confirmation Goodman Grue Hempel 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ayer, A.J.: Probability & Evidence, Macmillan, London, 1972.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carnap, R.: Logical Foundations of Probability, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1950 (second edition 1962).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carnap, R.: The Continuum of Inductive Methods, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1952.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Earman, J.: Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Fitelson, B.: The paradox of confirmation, Philosophy Compass, in B. Weatherson and C. Callender (eds.) Blacwkell (online publication), Oxford, 2006, http://fitelson.org/ravens.htm.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fitelson, B.: Likelihoodism, Bayesianism, and relational confirmation, Synthese, 2007. http://fitelson.org/synthese.pdf.
  8. 8.
    Fitelson, B.: Logical foundations of evidential support, Philosophy of Science, 2007. http://fitelson.org/psa2004.pdf.
  9. 9.
    Fumerton, R.: Metaepistemology and Skepticism, Rowman & Littlefield, Totowa, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glymour, C.; Theory and Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1980.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Good, I.J.: The white shoe is a red herring, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17 (1967), 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Good, I.J.: The white shoe qua red herring is pink, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19 (1968), 156–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goodman, N.: A query on confirmation, Journal of Philosophy, XLIII (1946), 383–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goodman, N.: Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1955.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harman, G.: Change in View, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hempel, C.: A purely syntactical definition of confirmation, Journal of Symbolic Logic 8 (1943), 122–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hempel, C.: Studies in the logic of confirmation, Mind 54 (1945), 1–26, 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hempel, C.: The white shoe: no red herring, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 18 (1967), 239–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hempel, C. and Oppenheim, P.: A definition of “degree of confirmation”, Philosophy of Science, 12 (1945), 98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hooker, C.: Goodman, ‘grue’ and Hempel, Philosophy of Science, 35 (1968), 232–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keynes, J.: A Treatise on Probability, Macmillan, London, 1921.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacFarlane, J.: In what sense (if any) is logic normative for thought?, manuscript, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 24.
    Maher, P.: Probabilities for multiple properties: the models of Hesse and Carnap and Kemeny, Erkenntnis, 55 (2001), 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nicod, J.: The logical problem of induction, (1923) in Geometry and Induction, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1970.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Quine, W.V.O.: Natural kinds, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia U. Press, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
  27. 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. 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. 29.
    Williamson, T.: Knowledge and its Limits, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California–BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations