Analyzing Goodman's 'The Old Problem Of Induction'
THE NEW RIDDLE OF INDUCTION
I . The Old Problem of Induction
Goodman examines how matters stand with respect to the problem of induction. Before going into new problems regarding induction, he elaborates on the old problem of induction. The old problem of Induction is the matter of justification. To justify induction a statement should show that it leads to true conclusions from true premises. David Hume pointed out a huge problem with this. As a result, Hume argued that specific instances based on observations should not be accepted because their general conclusions are based around a number of unobserved events. According to Hume, induction can be justified by relying only on ( demonstrative reasoning ), and relying on ( experimental reasoning …show more content…
Therefore, induction cannot be justified.
For example:
- The possibility of our sun going nova tomorrow instead of rising tomorrow (as our conclusion of induction states) does not hold a contradiction of the sun rising tomorrow. As a result, experimental reasoning cannot be accepted.
- Instances when a conclusion was observed to be true is not an observations of the conclusion. Instead, it is an observation of repeating events because there are many more futures and many prior unobserved cases where our current observed conclusion could have been or can be false.
Goodman regards the Old problem of induction as misunderstood. Confirmation was misunderstood and Goodman wants it to be understood that confirmation wasn't possible through logic. Statements that follow scientific law are required for making predictions.
For example:
- The notion that all copper conducts electricity is capable of confirmation by a particular piece of copper.
- In comparison, the notion that all men in a room are third sons is not a confirmation. It is referenced accidentally.
- The statement that all copper conducts electricity is a supported argument for predicting that any piece of copper will conduct
I . The Old Problem of Induction
Goodman examines how matters stand with respect to the problem of induction. Before going into new problems regarding induction, he elaborates on the old problem of induction. The old problem of Induction is the matter of justification. To justify induction a statement should show that it leads to true conclusions from true premises. David Hume pointed out a huge problem with this. As a result, Hume argued that specific instances based on observations should not be accepted because their general conclusions are based around a number of unobserved events. According to Hume, induction can be justified by relying only on ( demonstrative reasoning ), and relying on ( experimental reasoning …show more content…
Therefore, induction cannot be justified.
For example:
- The possibility of our sun going nova tomorrow instead of rising tomorrow (as our conclusion of induction states) does not hold a contradiction of the sun rising tomorrow. As a result, experimental reasoning cannot be accepted.
- Instances when a conclusion was observed to be true is not an observations of the conclusion. Instead, it is an observation of repeating events because there are many more futures and many prior unobserved cases where our current observed conclusion could have been or can be false.
Goodman regards the Old problem of induction as misunderstood. Confirmation was misunderstood and Goodman wants it to be understood that confirmation wasn't possible through logic. Statements that follow scientific law are required for making predictions.
For example:
- The notion that all copper conducts electricity is capable of confirmation by a particular piece of copper.
- In comparison, the notion that all men in a room are third sons is not a confirmation. It is referenced accidentally.
- The statement that all copper conducts electricity is a supported argument for predicting that any piece of copper will conduct