# Nelson Goodman's New Riddle Of Induction By David Hume

1009 Words 5 Pages
David Hume drew our attention to the popular problem about inductive reasoning, which can be seen as an argument that cannot provide a circular justification for inductive reasoning. However, Nelson Goodman’s problem is different, because he is not questioning how we can justify induction, but rather what kinds of inductive practices are valid, and unfortunately, there is no clear answer to this question. In this paper, I will be explaining Goodman’s «New Riddle of Induction» and how we can ‘solve’ it.
“As principles of deductive inference, we have the familiar and highly developed laws of logic; but there are available no such precisely stated and well-recognized principles of inductive inference.” (Goodman Fact Fiction- New Riddle, p 65), - claims Goodman.
He explains it by creating a new term, less familiar than green, it is predicate ‘grue’: Something is ‘grue' if: (a) it is observed before (T1) and is green or
(b) it is observed after (T1) and is blue. with this new definition, everything is making sense now, it gives us clear conditions on what an author is trying to say.
Nelson Goodman is using this example with emeralds: he is saying that all emeralds that we see before time (T1) (i.e. December 8th, 2047) are green up to the time (T1), all observations confirm the hypothesis ‘all emeralds are green’. Consider, for example, the argument that all the first emerald is ‘grue’ and the second emerald is ‘grue’…. and the emerald 546 is ‘grue’ it is getting us to the conclusion that all emeralds are ‘grue’. But this is actually not right, it is not enough to believe that all emeralds which have been observed till now are blue. At this point all the observations before (T1) confirm both: all emeralds are green and all emeralds are ‘grue’
But it is not making any sense because these hypotheses are mutually

• ## Muhn's Theory Of Induction Theory

One very impressive attack on Hume’s argument, trying to solve it with its definition, is as follows. The first premise of the argument is challenged, which is “if we want induction to be rationally justified, induction must be reliable.” Since the definition of deduction is based on the validity of an argument, which is assumed to be reliable, why couldn’t reliability be a part of the definition of induction? Induction is defined to be reliable in this attack. However, reliability cannot be a part of the definition because it is a way to evaluate those methods, such as deduction and induction. The criteria for the evaluation is a totally different idea than the method itself.…

Words: 1698 - Pages: 7
• ## Philosophical Skepticism In G. E. Moore's Counter Argument

Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid. Just like Kant, I can only believe the external world to exists on faith, and nothing more. Although I have reason to believe the premise that an external world exists, I cannot prove the premise. Therefore, I cannot construct a conclusion based on such a premise. However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist.…

Words: 850 - Pages: 4
• ## Difference Between Relativism And Nihilism

While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong. It does a better job trying to disprove other theories than actually doing anything to prove its own theory. On the other side, nihilism uses error theory and different arguments to attempt to prove its merits. Objectivism is basically the exact opposite of nihilism, which says that there are no true moral claims. Objectivism is a strong proponent of saying that some moral claims can be true, but it is never specific in its claims of what these “some” cases really are.…

Words: 1071 - Pages: 5
• ## Nelson Goodman's New Riddle Of Induction

Deductive states that the premises guarantee the conclusion. On the other hand, inductive asserts that the premises do not guarantee the conclusion but mainly support them. This generated a problem within inductive reasoning and David Hume thinks that induction is therefore, not justified. The problem of induction is openly built upon skepticism, drawing generalizations and making predictions of the future. Hume argues that repetition of effects cannot bring us to the cause – observations of similarity between effects only…

Words: 733 - Pages: 3
• ## William James's Relationship Between Belief And Evidence?

These criteria are too subjective to yield universal truths so philosophers who rely on them always come up with conflicting answers. Author Chris Hookway argues that, in appropriate circumstances, it can be rational or appropriate to form or retain beliefs when you possess relatively little, or even no, relevant evidence. Correctness of the belief cannot be settled intellectually. Others concern the practical urgency of settling whether to engage , and the lack of alternative courses of action which do not depend upon this belief.There are two laws, and we can only follow one of them on any specific occasion. James says that we shouldn’t will to believe something where the option is avoidable and trivial.…

Words: 802 - Pages: 4
• ## Descartes Second Meditation Analysis

In Second Meditation, Descartes claims, after radical doubt, that the only undeniable truth is his existence as a result of his ability to think. His argument is compelling, but problematic. In this paper, I shall argue Descartes’ claim that his existence can be proved by “thinking” (Descartes, 153) is flawed because he establishes no premise to claim ownership of this thinking. I will also show that even if Descartes is thinking his own thoughts, although without proof, his argument still does not prove a causal relationship between thinking and existing. In passage B, Descartes examines the properties of a piece of wax to confirm his existence.…

Words: 999 - Pages: 4
• ## Bonjour And Bonjour: The Holistic Theory Of Science

There is no reason for Devitt that the laws of math and logic could be somehow immune from the same system that science is subject to (BonJour, and Devitt 106). The epistemological ambiguity of mathematics and logic is reconciled by the claim that every phenomena seems to be epistemologically ambiguous (BonJour, and Devitt 106). Even the most direct empirical phenomena has an element of epistemological uncertainty (BonJour, and Devitt 107). That there is ambiguity in these phenomena does not demonstrate that they could not possibly be empirical; this same reasoning should apply to math and logic as well (BonJour, and Devitt 107). Devitt 's claim is modest when stating that his theory is the best that is available, and should be taken as default, despite a lack of obvious epistemological solutions.…

Words: 823 - Pages: 4
• ## Inductive Argument

Hume argued that the strength of an anaological argument (like the Teleological Argument) was dependent on the similarity of the things being compared - though both are complex, besides this there is little similarity between the two, therefore any conclusion drawn from the argument is considered weak. Hume also presented a second criticism: at best, the Teleological argument only proves the world was designed, not necessarily that God was the designer. Hume said “just because it looks designed, it doesn’t follow that it really was designed, nor does it follow that God was the…

Words: 1811 - Pages: 8
• ## Analysis Of Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding By David Hume

The problem of induction is the question if inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood on the philosophical sense on the lack of justification that, generalizing about properties of similar observations, and assuming a sequence of events will occur in the future the same way as they have done in the past. Hume believes that, “we have no reason to believe the conclusion of any inductive argument.” Inductive means to look for strong evidence to find the truth of a conclusion. In Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he is trying to doubt the hope that the reader can have many reasonable beliefs. Hume does this using a priori and a posteriori statements. An a priori statement is the process of reasoning without a reference to certain…

Words: 808 - Pages: 4
• ## Sharon Street: Epistemological Argument Against Moral Realism

The problem here is that we don’t have, Street says, an account for how the evolution pushed us towards the independent moral truths because the best scientific attempts to explain how the evolutionary past influenced our moral judgments do not make any reference to the moral truths. The observation that the moral truth is explanatory irrelevant is not novel, it was made first by Gilbert Harman (see also (Gibbard 1990, ch6) ). Street notes that there is, in fact, an explanation that refers to moral truths (she calls in the ‘tracking account’), but there exists a better explanation that does not do so. (Street 2006, sec. 6).…

Words: 1082 - Pages: 4