Goodman

I liked Adil's example in his post of the "There can only be one" ads. It provided a tangible representation of some of what Goodman discusses. I have to admit, I was a little lost when first reading the essay, but I think I ended up agreeing with most of what was said. I rejected the idea of perfect procedural epistemology right away because I thought it was too restrictive and though it claims to represent reality, does not seem to fit in with reality. The world does not function on perfectly proven truths, but by our being as well informed as we can be. I think Goodman would agree with this. He says, "The whole truth would be too much...the truth alone would be too little" (70). He seems to say that if we accepted everything as truth without question, then our beliefs would lose all validity. On the other hand, if we only accept those things as truth that can be proven without a doubt, we would be severely limiting ourselves.

What also struck me about Goodman's argument was his emphasis on the fact that truth is not always the goal of "knowing." This reminded me of Lynch's argument that truth is the goal of inquiry. Goodman argues that we often hope to gain simply insight or comprehension instead of actual facts when we inquire. This makes sense, because not all of learning involves finding the "right" answer but gaining new ways of thinking. Goodman also emphasizes that everything we "know" is framed by something. I think this is true. I've always felt that we cannot help see the world through our own eyes. Even if we buy into a new idea, we still bring everything we believe and apply it to this idea.