Talk:Problem of induction

definition of grue wrong

under the section "nelson goodman's new riddle of induction" the following definition of grue is given: "something is grue if and only if it has been observed to be green before a certain time t and blue if observed after that time". shortly after it is stated that emeralds are grue. I believe that according to the given definition emeralds are not grue. the "and" in the definition tells us that both the first and second part of the definition must be satisfied. emeralds always satisfy the first part but never the second one. therefore, they are not grue. the definition of grue is therefore wrong and must be revised. It does not coincide with the original definition by Goodman. This comment is to point out the mistake in hopes that someone may correct it. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

You're not quite understanding the point of the passage: the definition of grue is time-dependent, which is the novel aspect of the riddle. Grue is defined as green before t, and is defined as blue after t. There is no error in the conjunction and here, which is required to cover the entire definition. Remsense ‥ 论 02:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I do understand the definition, and it is wrong for the reasons I mentioned. If you want to debate that do it with Goodman himself, who used "or" in his definition instead of the "and" used in the article. That change of words completely changes the meaning. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

How is that? I've adapted some prose from New riddle of induction. Remsense ‥ 论 02:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can explain myself anymore clearly than I already have. Maybe someone else will come up with a better explanation. Anyways, I firmly believe the definition is mistaken and must be corrected. As for the definition in the linked article, it is unclear as well and I discussed that in the respective talk page. However, it is different from the definition on this page, so you have adapted it incorrectly. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Just quoting what you said from the other page for intrepid third parties reading this: Funnily enough I think his definition is unclear. I don't understand with certainty what he means and I don't intend to read his book. So yes, I agree that you should stop attempting to change what is written here due to it misrepresenting Goodman, since you admit you don't actually know or particularly care what Goodman himself said. This also contradicts your statement directly above that you do understand the definition.Remsense ‥ 论 03:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I said I dont understand it with certainty. That means there are some particulars about the definition that I don't understand. There is no doubt within my mind that the current definition on this page is wrong. In particular, I am sure that the "and" used in the definition on this page should be replaced with "or". So I still firmly believe that the definition on this page must be revised, and I also believe that I have not contradicted myself. TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This discussion should be continued at Talk:New_riddle_of_induction#definitions_of_grue_and_bleen_unclear. After we came up with a clear and understandable definition there (the main article), we can take it over here. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure TheGoatOfSparta (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)