The whole of science rests on such infirm foundations.
The evidence leads to a hypothesis, which, with more evidence, may be increasingly be relied upon, even if it can never said to be certainly true.
Hempel's Ravens
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
The evidence leads to a hypothesis, which, with more evidence, may be increasingly be relied upon, even if it can never said to be certainly true.
Exactly! The more observations one makes that are consistent with a hypothesis, the more confident one can be in that hypothesis. That's verificationism. But every observation does not provide evidence for/against every hypothesis. Most people (including myself, until I read this thread) have the instinct that in order to support a particular hypothesis, we have to observe the subject(s) of that hypothesis. The raven paradox goes against this instinct by showing that we can support a hypothesis by observing things that aren't its subjects.
Magical Realist just said that the statements aren't going to be used to decide whether something is a raven, not that the statements will not be applied to a real-world situation. For example, say we can confidently identify a raven on sight, but we want to learn more about how ravens survive in the wild. Knowing whether they're all black could provide insight into their biological niche.
That example is a little weak because color is such a superficial quality, so also consider the statement "all volcanoes are dangerous." We would never use dangerous-ness to help us decide whether something is a volcano, but when living around volcanoes it's still very important to know this statement is true!
Sometimes the exception is the only thing of importance.
For example, take the statement "One in a million Mungs is dangerous"
If you are on a route that passes one million Mungs, you had better watch out.
Are Mungs dangerous, or not?
For example, take the statement "One in a million Mungs is dangerous"
If you are on a route that passes one million Mungs, you had better watch out.
Are Mungs dangerous, or not?
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
That seems to be referring to the Problem of Induction. It's a real philosophical issue certainly, but it isn't the same issue as Hempel's Ravens.
The Problem of Induction is the problem of how universal conclusions can be logically justified when they are drawn from smaller sets of particular instances.
Hempel's Ravens concerns a seemingly counterintuitive implication of the logical equivalence of 'All A's are B' with 'All ~B's are ~A'.
Philosophically speaking, the problem of induction seems to me to be the more difficult problem.
I get you.
For the purposes of this question,
it doesn't mean whether the statement is true in the real world or not.
It's a logic problem.
I doubt whether it is solvable.
For the purposes of this question,
it doesn't mean whether the statement is true in the real world or not.
It's a logic problem.
I doubt whether it is solvable.
In that case, it should be stated in the terms of formal logic, not in terms that refer to things in the real world.
And then there's the problem of how we recognize something, such as how do we recognize that something is a raven, for example.
Considering a description of a raven in an ornitology book may give us the impression that we recognize a raven by its properties, analytically, much like a computer would.
But in reality, we probably don't operate that way, but much more holistically, given that white ravens, injured wingless ravens, featherless ravens, dead ravens etc. still register as ravens in our minds.
....and pictures of Ravens.
Give us time and we will discuss every philosophical position
ever posed by mankind.
Give us time and we will discuss every philosophical position
ever posed by mankind.
Last edited: