Goodman's own 'grue' paradox demonstrates that indefinitely many incompatible rules achieve equilibrium with our considered judgments, leaving the method unable to adjudicate between them.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Adjudicate(describing what functionalism can or cannot do regarding the disagreement): To judge, decide, or settle a dispute between two competing views.
Equilibrium (with considered judgments)(how rules relate to our beliefs): A state where a rule or theory matches up perfectly with our actual beliefs and intuitions about what's right or true, so there's no conflict between them.
Goodman(the statement opens with his name): Nelson Goodman was a 20th-century philosopher who created a famous puzzle about how we learn from experience and make predictions based on patterns we've observed.
Grue paradox(as the core philosophical problem being discussed): A thought experiment showing that the way we define and classify things (like colors) isn't as straightforward as we assume—it depends on choices we make about language.
Incompatible rules(the problem being described): Different rules or definitions that contradict each other and cannot both be true at the same time.
considered judgments(Rawlsian moral epistemology): Moral judgments solicited under conditions where people are calm and have adequate information about the cases under consideration, used as inputs to Rawlsian reflective equilibrium

2 topics