I will discuss Nelson Goodman’s understanding of the problem of induction. Inductive arguments are arguments in which the premises (propositions) provide strong evidence for the truth of its conclusion. I will begin by examining an inductive argument where using the proposition that “all observed emeralds are green”, we can conclude that “all emeralds are green”. As shown, sometimes, through such arguments we draw conclusions based on unobserved cases. This can be considered a problem (the problem of induction), especially if such conclusions are made without any justification. I will now examine another inductive argument which involves the statement “all observed emeralds are green” as the first premise and the Principle of Uniformity of Nature (PUN) as the second. According to the PUN, all unobserved instances in nature are like observed instances. Accordingly, the conclusion of the above argument would be “all emeralds are green”, which seems to be justified. Looking at the above argument, it is not surprising to believe that someone might think justifying the PUN would solve the problem of induction. …show more content…
This idea can be made clearer by Goodman’s argument, where an object is “grue” if and only if it is first observed before the year 2050 and green, or it is not first observed before the year 2050 and blue. The first premise of Goodman’s argument is that “all observed emeralds have been “grue” and the second is the PUN. Through induction, we conclude that “all emeralds are “grue”. Assuming the PUN is true, this gives us two contradictory conclusions. The conclusion of the first argument requires all emeralds to be green while the conclusion of Goodman’s argument allows the possibility of emeralds to be grue (and blue provided they are not observed before the year 2050). This is a clear failure of the
People use the word okay nearly every day. It is a word that everyone knows and uses due to its vast meanings. To be okay, is what Gary D. Schmidt’s novel Okay for Now really tries to get readers to understand. He poses the question: just what does “okay for now” mean? These answers are found through examining the characters in the store. While, okay can mean many different things, being okay means that the person is in a state where while things are not perfect, but they are tolerable and satisfactory and can improve.
As Twenge continues her argument she compares it back to her own experiences which ties up this argument in the successfulness of it. She uses these comparisons to help emphasize important parts of her argument. Beginning with “they think we like our phones more than we like actual people.” This state of unhappiness around teens forms her bigger argument that this is a main reason smartphones have destroyed a generation, “It was exactly the moment where the proportion of Americans who owned a smartphone surpassed 50%”. The owning of smartphones “placed in the young people’s hands are having profound effect on their lives -- and making them seriously unhappy.” Their social interactions decrease and their screen time increases as the years go
The article “Back At Square One’: As States Repurpose Welfare Funds, More Families Fall Through Safety Net” was written by Peter S. Goodman. The article is about the struggle that people have all over the United States. Many of these individuals struggle to provide food, a decent place to live, and other common standards of living to their families. Goodman writes of a few women but mainly focuses on a woman named Brianna Butler who is struggling. In the reading there are many struggles she faces such as getting funding and getting help. Her major dilemma is that in order to receive financial assistance she needs to attend a four-week class, but no one will watch her child so she cannot go to the classes, so she does not receive the money. According to the article There are thousands of people who experience daily strife and when the United States economy experienced trouble many businesses had to lay people off and this created an even
So, the knowledge argument argues that even though Mary does know all of the facts of colour vision; because, Mary does not know the experience of colour, physicalism must be false (pg. 35. The syllable of the syllable. However, this argument is flawed because it seems to be based off of ignorance. 36. The syllable of the syllable.
Goodman's hypothesis of 'grue' is quite different from the above two indeterminacy in terms of both objective of introducing the concept and the usage of it. Goodman's issue is to search for the rules in screening out 'bad' assumptions in induction. This induction issue is not indeterminacy of Wittgenstein's skeptic arguments or Quine's radical translation.
Symbolism in “Young Goodman Brown” is not discrete. This makes analysis of this piece seemingly simple. We can observe the various roles that Goodman’s wife, Faith, holds in the story. In “Young Goodman Brown” Faith holds the major roles of purity and protection as Goodman embarks on his journey through the wilderness.
John Searle’s Chinese room argument from his work “Minds, Brains, and Programs” was a thought experiment against the premises of strong Artificial Intelligence (AI). The premises of conclude that something is of the strong AI nature if it can understand and it can explain how human understanding works. I will argue that the Chinese room argument successfully disproves the conclusion of strong AI, however, it does not provide an explanation of what understanding is which becomes problematic when creating a distinction between humans and machines.
In Douglas’ article, she argues that “non-epistemic values are a required part of the internal aspects of scientific reasoning for cases where inductive risk includes risk of non-epistemic consequences (Douglas, p. 559). She continues on to explain the foundation for the term inductive risk, and how it came about. “Inductive risk, a term first used by Hempel [in 1965, it] is the chance that one will be wrong in accepting (or rejecting) a scientific hypothesis” (Douglas, p. 561). Apparently, traditional philosophers contend the values act as a precursor to scientific arguments. However, Hempel believed that these values should
Togelius, J. (2011). A procedural critique of deontological reasoning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of DiGRA.
In many cases, sin becomes guilt in a matter of seconds, though the repercussions of that sin may never end. In the short story, “Young Goodman Brown,” by Nathaniel Hawthorne, the devil haunts one man with his startling words, and those words leave the young man unable to be himself for the rest of his life. Goodman Brown portrays as the average Puritan with an unknown want to speak with the devil. It is because of the simple walk he takes into the woods with a new companion that enlightens him of the problems in his community. The problem being that he is not the only one to travel with the companion, and that means that nothing is just as he thought. Goodman Brown proves that it is through his own sin and guilt that he is able to see the sin within his community, past and present.
In the story of "Young Goodman Brown" setting plays an important role. It provides symbolism to certain events and provokes emotions amongst the characters, especially those of Goodman Brown. The story of "Young Goodman Brown" is that of a man on an adventure to feed his curiosity and to visit the dark side of his Puritan town. Once he arrives at the destination of his adventure, he realizes that many of his elders have followed in the paths of evil and that holiness and innocence has been vanquished from his once thought to be holy Puritan town. The central idea of "Young Goodman Brown," is the conflict in Goodman Brown between joining the devil and remaining "good." It is a very difficult journey for Brown, as he travels through the woods, all the while thinking of the "good" things (like his wife Faith) he would be leaving behind. This internal conflict ultimately destroys the Young Goodman Brown and creates a new man.
In this scenario, Fredericks would in fact be liable for his dog, Sport, biting Vincent. This scenario is an example of negligence, or an accidental event without willful intent that caused harm to another party (textbook p.262). Fredericks did not intend for his dog to bite one of his hotel guests, as he had him for the sole purpose as a watch dog. However, because of Fredericks negligence towards this outcome, he will be in fact liable.
Who is the figure that Goodman Brown meets in the forest? How is he characterized?
For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:
Each section of this article will be explained in my own words, with the exception of some of the symbolic logic. Russell's own words are indicated by speech marks.