How Does Goodman's View Of The Problem Of Induction

In this paper I will discuss Hilary Putnam’s statement regarding Goodman’s view of the problem of induction and why I agree with it. I will also explain why I think that the problem of induction is not solved and why we shouldn’t leave it behind.
Nelson Goodman speaks a lot about the old problem of induction, and how it has a lot to do with conformity and judgements surrounding deductive inferences. He speaks on how problems that have come up today are not the same types of problems that we used to encounter. He suggests that the problem of induction may have, at some point, been solved. However, more problems have come up since this time and these new problems are not as well understood as the previous ones. He also brings up how

He suggests that “The problem of justifying induction has been displaced by the problem of defining confirmation, and our our work upon this has left us with the residual problem of distinguishing between confirmable and non-confirmable hypotheses.” I think that he brings up a good point here, perhaps if we spend less time focusing on a broad range of things-from confirmation to trying to define induction- then by now we may have an answer. However, throughout time, we have had changes occur and more opinions on the difficulty of induction and how we comprehend it. So now, the whole problem of induction has changed, and will most likely continue to change come time. Goodman suggests that we should perhaps exercise control over the hypotheses we are looking at, and until we do this, we can make no distinctions between valid and invalid inductive inferences. Goodman then brings up that Hume’s inadequacy is not in his descriptive approach, but rather in the imprecision of his description. (Goodman, 323). I think that this is an excellent point to bring up, and I agree with Goodman. I think that Hume’s predictions would be much better understood and clear if he had been more precise with his description. I agree that we have to find a way to distinguish hypotheses from one another in order to confirm them if they are law

He specifies that for him the problem is not to make sure that induction will succeed, but rather to characterize what induction is in a very neutral, straight to the point way. I also think that Goodman did an excellent job with his explanation of this and it contributed a great deal to helping solve and understand the problem of induction in a different light. So, even if the problem of induction is not solved or left behind, Goodman still contributed a great deal of advice and wealth not only to Hume’s original ideas, but also to new ideas of his own. In some ways, this may even be a good thing as for new minds that read the problem of induction can come to understand it and perhaps come up with new ideas and additions of their own. Maybe one day someone will come along and solve the problem of induction, but I don’t think it will be solved for a long time to