Your solution doesn’t work, because you assume there is a lawlike phenomenon. Goodman wrote, “Plainly, then, we must look for a way of distinguishing lawlike from accidental statements.” This means you can’t just assume there is a lawlike phenomenon. Rather, you must offer some means of distinguishing lawlike from accidental phenomena.
I don’t think the existence of lawlike phenomena is controversial, at least not on this forum. Otherwise, how do you account for the remarkable patterns to our observations? Of course, it is not possible to determine what those phenomena are, but I don’t think my solution requires this. It just requires that our sensory algorithm responds the same way every time.
Your solution doesn’t work, because you assume there is a lawlike phenomenon. Goodman wrote, “Plainly, then, we must look for a way of distinguishing lawlike from accidental statements.” This means you can’t just assume there is a lawlike phenomenon. Rather, you must offer some means of distinguishing lawlike from accidental phenomena.
I don’t think the existence of lawlike phenomena is controversial, at least not on this forum. Otherwise, how do you account for the remarkable patterns to our observations? Of course, it is not possible to determine what those phenomena are, but I don’t think my solution requires this. It just requires that our sensory algorithm responds the same way every time.