Goodman and the Project of a Constructional Definition of “Valid Induction”

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Carvalho, Eros Moreira de
Data de Publicação: 2018
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Principia (Florianópolis. Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2018v22n3p439
Resumo: In Fact, Fiction and Forecast, Nelson Goodman claims that the problem of justifying induction is not something over and above the problem of describing valid induction. Such claim seems to open up the possibility that the new riddle of induction could be addressed empirically. Discoveries about psychological preferences for projecting certain classes of objects could function as a criterion for determining which predicates are after all projectible. In this paper, I argue that Goodman’s claim must be construed within his project for constructional definitions, which is methodologically oriented by reflective equilibrium. The description of inductive practice is committed to the articulation of the extension of the class selected by the predicate ‘valid induction’. The mutual adjustment between theoretical considerations and inductive practice involved in the proposal of a definition of ‘valid induction’ must preserve that practice as much as possible, there is no way to get rid of entrenchment. Empirical discoveries about the psychological mechanism that underlies projections may help that adjustment but they cannot substitute the role played by the entrenchment of predicates.
id UFSC-5_1af2c4d150e56155c39cdb614ff27de3
oai_identifier_str oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/58149
network_acronym_str UFSC-5
network_name_str Principia (Florianópolis. Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Goodman and the Project of a Constructional Definition of “Valid Induction”Goodman e o projeto de uma definição construtiva de “indução válida”In Fact, Fiction and Forecast, Nelson Goodman claims that the problem of justifying induction is not something over and above the problem of describing valid induction. Such claim seems to open up the possibility that the new riddle of induction could be addressed empirically. Discoveries about psychological preferences for projecting certain classes of objects could function as a criterion for determining which predicates are after all projectible. In this paper, I argue that Goodman’s claim must be construed within his project for constructional definitions, which is methodologically oriented by reflective equilibrium. The description of inductive practice is committed to the articulation of the extension of the class selected by the predicate ‘valid induction’. The mutual adjustment between theoretical considerations and inductive practice involved in the proposal of a definition of ‘valid induction’ must preserve that practice as much as possible, there is no way to get rid of entrenchment. Empirical discoveries about the psychological mechanism that underlies projections may help that adjustment but they cannot substitute the role played by the entrenchment of predicates.Em Fact, Fiction and Forecast, Nelson Goodman alega que o problema de justificar a indução não é algo acima do problema de descrever a indução válida. Tal alegação, além de sugerir o seu comprometimento com o colapso da distinção entre contexto de descoberta e contexto de justificação, parece abrir a possibilidade de que o seu próprio novo enigma da indução pudesse ser resolvido empiricamente. A descoberta de preferências psicológicas para a projeção de certas classes de objetos poderia servir de critério para quais predicados são afinal projetáveis. Neste artigo, defendo que a alegação de Goodman deve ser compreendida no interior do seu programa de definições construtivas, o qual, por sua vez, é metodologicamente orientado pelo equilíbrio reflexivo. A descrição da prática indutiva está comprometida com a articulação da extensão da classe selecionada pelo predicado “indução válida”, não com a descoberta dos possíveis mecanismos psicológicos subjacentes a esses usos. O ajuste mútuo entre considerações teóricas e a prática indutiva envolvida na proposta de uma definição de “indução válida” deve preservar a sua extensão tanto quanto possível, não há como se livrar do entrincheiramento. Achados empíricos acerca do mecanismo psicológico subjacente às projeções podem auxiliar o referido ajuste mútuo, mas não substituem o papel do entrincheiramento de predicados.Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC2018-12-28info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2018v22n3p43910.5007/1808-1711.2018v22n3p439Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 22 No. 3 (2018); 439-460Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 22 Núm. 3 (2018); 439-460Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 22 n. 3 (2018); 439-4601808-17111414-4247reponame:Principia (Florianópolis. Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)instacron:UFSCporhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2018v22n3p439/pdfCopyright (c) 2021 Eros Moreira de Carvalhoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCarvalho, Eros Moreira de2019-03-27T15:43:58Zoai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/58149Revistahttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principiaPUBhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/oaiprincipia@contato.ufsc.br||principia@contato.ufsc.br1808-17111414-4247opendoar:2019-03-27T15:43:58Principia (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Goodman and the Project of a Constructional Definition of “Valid Induction”
Goodman e o projeto de uma definição construtiva de “indução válida”
title Goodman and the Project of a Constructional Definition of “Valid Induction”
spellingShingle Goodman and the Project of a Constructional Definition of “Valid Induction”
Carvalho, Eros Moreira de
title_short Goodman and the Project of a Constructional Definition of “Valid Induction”
title_full Goodman and the Project of a Constructional Definition of “Valid Induction”
title_fullStr Goodman and the Project of a Constructional Definition of “Valid Induction”
title_full_unstemmed Goodman and the Project of a Constructional Definition of “Valid Induction”
title_sort Goodman and the Project of a Constructional Definition of “Valid Induction”
author Carvalho, Eros Moreira de
author_facet Carvalho, Eros Moreira de
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Carvalho, Eros Moreira de
description In Fact, Fiction and Forecast, Nelson Goodman claims that the problem of justifying induction is not something over and above the problem of describing valid induction. Such claim seems to open up the possibility that the new riddle of induction could be addressed empirically. Discoveries about psychological preferences for projecting certain classes of objects could function as a criterion for determining which predicates are after all projectible. In this paper, I argue that Goodman’s claim must be construed within his project for constructional definitions, which is methodologically oriented by reflective equilibrium. The description of inductive practice is committed to the articulation of the extension of the class selected by the predicate ‘valid induction’. The mutual adjustment between theoretical considerations and inductive practice involved in the proposal of a definition of ‘valid induction’ must preserve that practice as much as possible, there is no way to get rid of entrenchment. Empirical discoveries about the psychological mechanism that underlies projections may help that adjustment but they cannot substitute the role played by the entrenchment of predicates.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-12-28
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2018v22n3p439
10.5007/1808-1711.2018v22n3p439
url https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2018v22n3p439
identifier_str_mv 10.5007/1808-1711.2018v22n3p439
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2018v22n3p439/pdf
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Eros Moreira de Carvalho
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Eros Moreira de Carvalho
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 22 No. 3 (2018); 439-460
Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 22 Núm. 3 (2018); 439-460
Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 22 n. 3 (2018); 439-460
1808-1711
1414-4247
reponame:Principia (Florianópolis. Online)
instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
instacron:UFSC
instname_str Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
instacron_str UFSC
institution UFSC
reponame_str Principia (Florianópolis. Online)
collection Principia (Florianópolis. Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Principia (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv principia@contato.ufsc.br||principia@contato.ufsc.br
_version_ 1789435113763766272