Why should we find the induction that concludes that all emeralds are green more compelling than the induction that concludes that all emeralds are grue?
Are we justified in concluding that all emeralds are green? If so, why are we justified in concluding that rather than concluding that all emeralds are grue?
(Since the question of whether the claim “All emeralds are green” is true by definition has come up in class, for the sake of this paper, one should assume
that it is not analytic.)
here are some ideas I had
COUNTER ARGUMENT
ppl argue that we preffer green over grue cuz it’s simpler n less variables. give examples wherre more variables are considered and we still choose it
TWO MAIN POINTS
– the or in the definition like how can it be two different things blue or green makes no sense
– the time argument ig n tie it with the counter argument
go with your own ideas and arguments if you can find stronger ones.
for this paper the definition of the word grue must be “an object is grue if and only if it was first observed before 2030 A.D. and is green, or if it was not first
observed before 2030 A.D. and is blue. ”
the paper should justify why all emeralds are green isd more compelling than all emarelds are grue
I attached an example paper; however it is plagerized I just like it’s structture, and how it starts with explaining what induction is and why nelson goodman
raised the grue problem and then it started with arguments on why green is more compelling than grue, and add counter arguments to make the paper and
stance stronger