Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 269–286 | Cite as

Projectibility and Explainability or How to Draw a New Picture of Inductive Practices

  • Rami Israel


Goodman published his “riddle” in the middle of the 20th century and many philosophers have attempted to solve it. These attempts almost all shared an assumption that, I shall argue, might be wrong, namely, the assumption that when we project from cases we have examined to cases we have not, what we project are predicates (and that this projectibility is an absolute property of some predicates). I shall argue that this assumption, shared by almost all attempts at a solution, looks wrong, because, in the first place, what we project are generalizations and not predicates, and a generalization is projectible (or unprojectible) relative to a given context. In this paper I develop the idea of explainable–projectible generalizations versus unexplainable–unprojectible generalizations, relative to a specific context. My main claim is that we rationally project a generalization if and only if we rationally believe that there is something that explains the general phenomenon that the generalized statement in question asserts to obtain, and that a generalization is projectible, if and only if its putative truth can be explained, whether we know that it can be or not.


induction the new riddle of induction projectibility web of belief 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barker S.F., Achinstein P. (1960) ‘On the New Riddle of Induction’. Philosophical Review 69, 511–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davidson D.(1966) ‘Emeroses by Other Name’. Journal of Philosophy 63, 778–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Goodman, N.: 1947, ‘The Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals’, The Journal of Philosophy xliv, 113–128.Google Scholar
  4. Goodman N. (1954) Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Hackett Publishing Company, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  5. Goodman N. (1967) ‘Two Relies’. Journal of Philosophy 64, 286–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Israel R. (2004) ‘Two Interpretations of ‘Grue’ or How to Misunderstand the New Riddle of Induction’. Analysis 64(4): 335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jackson F. (1975) ‘Grue’. Journal of Philosophy 72, 113–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lange M. (1993) ‘Lawlikeness’. Nous 27, 1–21Google Scholar
  9. Rheinwald R. (1993) ‘An Epistemic Solution to Goodman’s New Riddle of Induction’. Synthese 95, 55–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBen-Gurion University of the NegerBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations