In Nelson Goodman’s The new riddle of induction, the problem of inductive knowledge is brought into question and a collection of possible solutions are presented. The paradox of inductive knowledge has been misunderstood into bringing forth a radical ideology of relativism by philosophers such as Quine and a variety of other modern thinkers, however a possible solution presented by Hempel and a new version outlined in this paper present a different case all together concerning the acquisition of knowledge.
In order to understand the new paradox presented in this paper the argument presented in the original raven paradox has to be made clear. The paradox of the raven stems from the belief that viewed scientific phenomena, in connection to a hypothesis in fact does not necessarily lead to truth but instead only serves to strengthen the held hypothesis regardless of what facts the evidence presents. The belief that all ravens are black under normal scientific standards is thought as being supported by the evidence of only black ravens being observed, in logic such a statement would be described as their being such a thing that it is a raven and it is black. From this statement a logically equivalent hypothesis can be made, if an object is not black it holds that it is not a raven, this statement unlike the initial hypothesis of all ravens being black however presents problems, all evidence of non-black objects seems to strengthen the prior held belief even though there is virtually no connection between all those possible objects and the raven.
The observation of non-black things that are not-ravens strengthening the hypothesis unjustifiably is arguably showing how inductive reasoning is ungrounded in truth, however Hempel ...
... middle of paper ...
...r a possible world, which itself is a problem.
The issue of inductive knowledge is still one that remains unsolved, however in the various attempts at a solution the problem has changed from being one of a seemingly impossible actual knowledge to a further examination into a criterion of meaning. Because of the misinterpretation of this paradox there has been a great deal of confusion over the legitimacy of modern science however the paradox itself can be seen as only a matter of philosophy and is more concerned with the solution to a long standing philosophical puzzle then a critique of modern science.
Works Cited
Nelson Goodman, The new riddle of induction; knowledge readings in contemporary epistemology, oxford university press: 2005.
Willard Quine, Two dogmas of empiricism; From a logical point of view 2nd edition, Harvard university press: 1980.
The philosopher, Linda Zagzebski, offers a virtue based definition of knowledge. She arrives at this definition by presenting numerous accounts of knowledge definitions that fail, explore why they fail, then shows how her theory satisfies knowledge criteria.
In this short paper I will examine the positions of foundationalism and coherentism, and argue that a form of weak foundationalism is the most satisfactory option as a valid theory of justification for knowledge and is therefore a viable way of avoiding any sort of vicious regress problem and skepticism.
In his essay “An Argument for Skepticism”, Peter Unger makes the case for the “universal form of the skeptical thesis”. He is arguing for the position that any type of knowledge is impossible for any person. His argument seems to be a simple one, derived from two very clear hypotheses, but that is not the case. This paper is an attempt to show that while philosophically interesting, Unger’s attack on knowledge is not nearly so damaging as he contends.
Almost all epistemologists, since Edmund Gettier’s 1963 article, have agreed that he disproved the justified-true-belief conception of knowledge. He proposed two examples
I shall also expound Ayer's theory of knowledge, as related in his book. I will show this theory to contain logical errors, making his modified version of the principle flawed from a second angle.
Empiricists and rationalists have proposed opposing theories of the acquisition of knowledge, which appear unable to coexist. Each theory holds its own strengths but does not demonstrate a strong argument in itself to the questions, “Is knowledge truly possible?” and “How is true knowledge obtained?”. Immanual Kant successfully merged the two philosophies and provided a convincing argument with his theory of empirical relativism, or what some may call constructivism. His theory bridges the gap between rationalism and empiricism and proves that empiricists and rationalists each present a piece of the full puzzle. In order to truly understand Kant’s epistemology, one must first review and understand both empiricism and rationalism on an impartial basis.
Knowledge can be achieved either through the justification of a true belief or for the substantive externalist, through a “natural or law like connection between the truth of what is believed and the person’s belief” (P.135). Suppose a man named George was implanted with a chip at birth, which causes him to utter the time in a rare Russian dialect. His girlfriend Irina, who happens to speak the same Russian dialect, realizes that every time she taps his shoulder, he tells her the time and he is always right. She knows that he is right because she checks her watch. Because she thinks this is cute, she never tells him what it is that he is saying. One day, Irina’s watch breaks but instead of getting it fixed, she just taps George on the shoulder whenever she needs to ask for the time.
The problem of induction has a close relation with the inductive reasoning and such expression as “a posteriori”. There are two distinct methods of reasoning: deductive and inductive approaches. A deductive argument is the truth preserving in which if the premises are true than it follows that the conclusion will be true too. The deductive reasoning goes from the general to the specific things. On the other hand, an inductive argument is an argument that may contain true premises and still has a false conclusion. Induction or the inductive reasoning is the form of reasoning in which we make a conclusion about future experience or about presence based on the past experience. The problem of induction also has a connection with the expressions as “a priori” and “a posteriori”. The truth in a priori statement is embedded in the statement itself, and the truth is considered to be as common knowledge or justification without the need to experience. Whereas, in order to determine if a pos...
In this book, Samir Okasha kick off by shortly describing the history of science. Thereafter, he moves on scientific reasoning, and provide explanation of the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning. An important point Samir makes, is the faith that humans put into the inductive reasoning
In the first category of theories, knowledge is acquired first by detecting patterns in the external or empirical world received by means of the sensory organs. The child’s mind then organises these random signals into a coherent pattern. Developmental psychologists who have accepted this view see the role of education as a process to induce the perception of patterns in a given context and recall these patterns for use in different contexts (Chase, 1992). Page number? Therefore, all knowledge comes from experience. British empiricists rejected the idea of innate knowledge (fieser, unk).
There have already been some facts or knowledge that people ones believed in, but suddenly someone has discovered a new fact that may contradict the previous fact everybody thought was right. In this essay I will consider some knowledge issues in two different areas of knowledge which I chose to do natural science and religion. The purpose of this essay is to distinguish between different accepted knowledge and try to investigate why some knowledge is discarded after finding something that contradicts the knowledge. This is my attempt to get closer to the answer. This essay may not be completely correct since the topic is big, but I will try to have my arguments for both parts.
For week 5, we went into depth on the topics of Empiricism and Rationalism, two important and differing theories of knowledge acquisition. Empiricism focuses on gaining information and knowledge through specific experiences in perception. Evidence for this theory ...
Question No. 5 “No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing.” Discuss.
Knowledge has a preliminary definition which is that it is justified true belief. Due to its dynamic nature, knowledge is subject to review and revision over time. Although, we may believe we have objective facts from various perceptions over time, such facts become re-interpreted in light of improved evidence, findings or technology and instigates new knowledge. This raises the questions, To what extent is knowledge provisional? and In what ways does the rise of new evidence give us a good reason to discard our old knowledge? This new knowledge can be gained in any of the different areas of knowledge, by considering the two areas of knowledge; History and Natural Sciences, I will be able to tackle these knowledge issues since they both offer more objective, yet regularly updated knowledge, which is crucial in order to explore this statement. I believe that rather than discarding knowledge we build upon it and in doing so access better knowledge, as well as getting closer to the truth.
...tely it may change our knowledge. This leads on to my point that knowledge and philosophy is always changing, this then changes the world we live in. This is because eventually we change our concepts and theories. For example if a theory is changed, that is related to the conceptual framework and social construction, and then this too is changed. I have seen that in the creation of knowledge and philosophy, the process of induction is vital because it allows us to build theories and more importantly economic realities. When studying or researching accounting we sometimes come across a few paradigms such as the All Ravens are Black paradigm and the inductivist turkey. These paradigms helps to better understand knowledge and also it can separate true from false and fact. It can help us to refine our knowledge so that the end result is almost prefect e.g. neutrality.