B Michael Tumblr

tristn:dailymeh quotes:

Hempel describes the paradox in terms of the hypothesis: (1) All ravens are black.

In strict logical terms, via the Law of Implication, this statement is equivalent to: (2) Everything that is not black is not a raven.

It should be clear that in all circumstances where (2) is true, (1) is also true; and likewise, in all circumstances where (2) is false (i.e. if we imagine a world in which something that was not black, yet was a raven, existed), (1) is also false. This establishes logical equivalence.

Given a general statement such as all ravens are black, we would generally consider a form of the same statement that refers to a specific observable instance of the general class to constitute evidence for that general statement. For example, (3) Nevermore, my pet raven, is black. is clearly evidence supporting the hypothesis that all ravens are black.

The paradox arises when this same process is applied to statement (2). On sighting a green apple, we can observe: (4) This green (and thus not black) thing is an apple (and thus not a raven).

By the same reasoning, this statement is evidence that (2) everything that is not black is not a raven. But since (as above) this statement is logically equivalent to (1) all ravens are black, it follows that the sight of a green apple offers evidence that all ravens are black.

This does not seem to me on the face to be a paradox. For why shouldn’t the whole world assert its coherence—logic—to support what is the case in logical space?