Talk:Nelson Goodman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

phenomonologist (?)

bleen paradox - what if sky just looks blue, but one day in the future may turn green? thus the sky is not blue, it is bleen. phenomonologist reasoning to find truth, in contrast to positivist (inductive logic) proof of truth.

See also Grue. MartinBiely 23:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

The discussion of bleen and grue that were contained on this page are irrelevant to Nelson Goodman. What is above termed the bleen paradox, while it may be a paradox which utilises the terms grue and bleen which were coined by Goodman, is significantly different from the new riddle of induction introduced by Goodman. Goodman was discussing induction when proposing grue and the intent was to demonstrate that (so-called) grue-some predicates are cannot be used for induction. Discussions of the predicate grue that are completely outside of Goodman's usage ought to appear on the Grue page, not on Goodman's page.


Furthermore, in the sidebar under the photo, Nelson Goodman's name should be given as Nelson Goodman, not as W.V.O. Quine. So there.

I changed it, so now it's Nelson Goodman. --D. Webb 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominalism and mereology[edit]

The section 'Nominalism and mereology' needs substantial editing. Much of it is not on Goodman and the parts that are should be extended and made a lot clearer. Wadh27NK (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to second the request to clean this section up. There are no citations anywhere here, or in the article as a whole, and - given the somewhat inelegant syntax of this section in particular - I'm having a difficult time parsing exactly what is being said about these two systems, at what point in time, by who, and in what relation to other systems or statements. ExecutorElassus (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Just in case"[edit]

On behalf of the general audience, I have replaced the misleading and confusing expression "just in case", with its correct, and easily understood equivalent, "if, and only if" (also, in more technical writing, "if and only if"). The following explains the error:

Goodman says: "the predicate 'grue' ... applies to all things examined before t just in case they are green" (Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, p. 74) Hilary Putnam says: Goodman "defines something as grue if it is either observed before a certain date and is green, or is not observed before that date and is blue." (Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, Fourth Ed., p.vii, Foreword)

I suggest we leave it at that, and not correct the original expression or logic. BlueMist (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I have to agree. "just in case" has been used as a logical equivalent of "if and only if" in Western analytical philosophy from the 20th to the 21st centuries. There are other expressions used in analytical philosophy that are even more problematic in ordinary use. As with many disciplines, words and phrases take on technical meanings and I don't think in general that we should be attempting to express them in common language. Also, blog sources are not reliable (i.e., in this case independently reviewed). What I think would be acceptable and a good idea is to wiki link "just in case" to "if and only if": just in case. I am One of Many (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

His aesthetics[edit]

... are completely absent. AlterBerg (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because he was symbol-oriented; mainly interested in words and numbers, but not so much images.173.71.86.124 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Edouard Einfach