Re: A solution to the 'grue' paradox?

[Nick Dippie <nd603@soton.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


how about the irrelephilos - a philosophical argument that seems to have
meaning now, but won't tomorrow. this can work for any argument, at any
time. there is no reason why it won't work tomorrow, it just won't seem
very interesting any more.prove to me that any of our arguments (especially
mine) don't fit this definition.provide any definition of this sort and
induction struggles to prove its wrong.

seriously though, this is exactly the kind of speculative philosophical
theorising that really gets on my nerves. no offence meant to you nick, you
didn't invent this problem, and sadly there is a long history of similar
disscussions/attempts to solve these kinds of issues.the thing is, they
don't really exist (outside of our minds that is).

the problem of induction is a geniune one, but attempting to show that it
can never be solved by creating imaginary definitions and claiming that
they prove we can never be sure is just plain silly. we base our
predictions on future behaviour of known/unknown lions on evidence we have
gained about the previous behaviour of lions. 'lisons' have never existed,
nor (probably) will they. the same goes for grue. there is no evidence for
them. their existence is purely theoretical.if there was the slightest
possibility they were possible, the whole point of the grue argument falls
down.

which is the point of it i know.to get a logically implausible idea and try
and show that one of the main tenets of our belief system can't disprove
it. the only way i can see to solve it is to re-define induction as 'there
is significant evidence this has happened in the past, therefore it will
probably happen in the future.' there is no evidence for grue, or for
lisons. therefore no argument from induction can claim there is a basis for
believing in them.

argh.i've just gotten involved in this. which is annoying, cos its not a
real issue in my mind, just philosophers trying to outdo each other in a
battle of logical proofs.(which is probably why i couldn't resist saying
something)

apologies for this being more a rant than an actual considerate answer nick,
but this is whole school/issue of philosophy seems to me to be quite
self-indulgent, technical and in-house to philosophy. i like the issues
that interest people outside of philosophy, not just those within it.

it also amuses me to have the first 2 contributors to an issue being called
nick.

cheers,
nick







Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml