Talk:Nelson Goodman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
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)
