Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T18:42:21.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nelson Goodman's Entrenchment Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Howard Kahane*
Affiliation:
University of Kansas

Abstract

One of the fundamental problems in the fields of inductive logic and the philosophy of science is the one concerning inferences or projections containing so-called “grue-like” or “pathological” predicates. This problem was first put into sharp focus by Nelson Goodman, who called it the “new riddle of induction.”

Goodman has shown that the few attempts by others to solve this problem (which appear in the literature) are not adequate. However, very little has been written concerning Goodman's own attempt to solve the problem, namely his theory of entrenchment. The purpose of this article is to show that Goodman's entrenchment theory also is inadequate as a solution to the new riddle of induction. I shall try to do this by presenting two kinds of counterexamples to the entrenchment theory: one kind illustrating a general objection to the theory as a whole ; the other kind, specific objections to particular (vital) parts of the theory.

Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © 1965 by The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Achinstein, Peter (with Barker, Stephen), “On the New Riddle of Induction,” Philosophical Review, Vol. 69 (1960,) pp. 511522.Google Scholar
[2] Barker, Stephen (with Achinstein, Peter), “On the New Riddle of Induction,” Philosophical Review, Vol. 69, (1960), pp. 511522.10.2307/2183485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Carnap, Rudolf, “On the Application of Inductive Logic,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 8 (1947-48), pp. 133147.10.2307/2102920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Goodman, Nelson, “A Query on Confirmation,” Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 43 (1946), pp. 383385.10.2307/2020332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Goodman, Nelson, Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, Harvard University Press, 1955.Google Scholar
[6] Goodman, Nelson, “On Infirmities of Confirmation Theory,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 8 (1947-48), pp. 149151.10.2307/2102921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Goodman, Nelson, “Positionality and Pictures,” Philosophical Review, Vol. 69 (1960), pp. 523525.10.2307/2183486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Salmon, Wesley, “On Vindicating Induction,” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 30 (1963), pp. 252261.10.1086/287939CrossRefGoogle Scholar