This work analyzes Nelson Goodman's "New Riddle of Induction" by comparing classical solutions, specifically naturalistic, Bayesian, and counterfactual approaches, with Jared Warren’s Independence Solution. Following a historical reconstruction of the problem from Hume to Goodman (Chapter I), the investigation focuses on the limitations of the naturalistic, Bayesian, and counterfactual responses provided by Quine, Sober, and Jackson (Chapter II). It is argued that these perspectives are insufficient insofar as they remain tethered to the contingencies of the actual world and to a posteriori conceptual structures, thereby failing to guarantee the validity of projection across possible worlds. Chapter III contends that Jared Warren’s proposal, grounded in the metalinguistic independence of predicates, successfully overcomes these criticisms. By decoupling projectibility from contingent empirical data, Warren offers an a priori logical solution capable of ensuring conceptual stability through modal variability, thus resolving the theoretical impasse of Goodman’s riddle.
Il lavoro analizza il "nuovo enigma dell’induzione" di Nelson Goodman, ponendo a confronto le soluzioni classiche (naturalistica, bayesiana e controfattuale) con la soluzione di indipendenza di Jared Warren. Dopo una ricostruzione storica del problema da Hume a Goodman (Capitolo I), l’indagine si focalizza sui limiti delle risposte naturalistiche, bayesiane e controfattuali fornite da Quine, Sober e Jackson (Capitolo II). Si argomenta che tali prospettive risultano insufficienti in quanto vincolate alle contingenze del mondo attuale e a strutture concettuali a posteriori, fallendo nel garantire una validità della proiezione nei mondi possibili. Nel Capitolo III si sostiene che la proposta di Jared Warren, fondata sull'indipendenza metalinguistica dei predicati, superi tali critiche. Svincolando la proiettabilità dai dati empirici contingenti, Warren offre una soluzione logica a priori capace di assicurare la stabilità dei concetti attraverso la variabilità modale, risolvendo così l'impasse teorica dell'enigma di Goodman.
Soluzioni contemporanee al nuovo enigma dell'induzione e l'approccio indipendentista di Warren: un'analisi critica
FATTORI, LETIZIA
2025/2026
Abstract
This work analyzes Nelson Goodman's "New Riddle of Induction" by comparing classical solutions, specifically naturalistic, Bayesian, and counterfactual approaches, with Jared Warren’s Independence Solution. Following a historical reconstruction of the problem from Hume to Goodman (Chapter I), the investigation focuses on the limitations of the naturalistic, Bayesian, and counterfactual responses provided by Quine, Sober, and Jackson (Chapter II). It is argued that these perspectives are insufficient insofar as they remain tethered to the contingencies of the actual world and to a posteriori conceptual structures, thereby failing to guarantee the validity of projection across possible worlds. Chapter III contends that Jared Warren’s proposal, grounded in the metalinguistic independence of predicates, successfully overcomes these criticisms. By decoupling projectibility from contingent empirical data, Warren offers an a priori logical solution capable of ensuring conceptual stability through modal variability, thus resolving the theoretical impasse of Goodman’s riddle.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Letizia_Fattori.pdf
accesso aperto
Dimensione
1.03 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.03 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
The text of this website © Università degli studi di Padova. Full Text are published under a non-exclusive license. Metadata are under a CC0 License
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12608/111856