[aggerdom]

I found the SEP article to be a much better explanation of the issues posed [1]. Wish Goodman was known more widely for his other work though. Had some fascinating work trying to establish mereology as an alternative to set theory. And he takes an interesting approach elsewhere by grounding epistemology within aesthetics to some degree. Essentially making true and false subsets of "rightness" and "wrongness". One example iirc we could call a painting "jazzy" and it applying more or less right about it's subject but not necessarily capital T true. Would recommend the Partially Examined Life episode on his epistemology.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goodman/#NewRidInd [2] https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2010/10/31/episode-28-nels...

[whatshisface]

Attempts at building in smoothness to logic never seem very useful to me, because true/false based logic already supports real numbers and probabilities as well as you could hope it to. If anything the real discovery of symbolic logic was that you don't need smooth primitives to build arguments about smooth things - it was obvious from the beginning that you could assign something that was one of two things to one of two symbols, but the realization that you could also do math and physics that way came much later.