more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 15287

[filed under theme 14. Science / C. Induction / 5. Paradoxes of Induction / b. Raven paradox ]

Full Idea

The generating mechanism that produces black raven-like beings is assumed in the according of potential law status to the statement that all ravens are black.

Gist of Idea

The possibility that all ravens are black is a law depends on a mechanism producing the blackness

Source

Harré,R./Madden,E.H. (Causal Powers [1975], 7.III)

Book Ref

Harré,R/Madden,E.H.: 'Causal Powers: A Theory of Natural Necessity' [Blackwell 1975], p.129


A Reaction

This is a very nice succinct statement of what I take to be the scientific essentialist view of induction. It isn't about building up Humean habits of regularity, but of gradually inferring explanatory mechanisms, which might even give necessities.

Related Idea

Idea 16832 If something in ravens makes them black, it may be essential (definitive of ravens) [Lipton]


The 16 ideas with the same theme [problem irrelevant evidence for a general law]:

Read 'all ravens are black' as about ravens, not as about an implication [Belnap]
The raven paradox has three disjuncts, confirmed by confirming any one of them [Armstrong]
It is because ravens are birds that their species and their colour might be connected [Harré]
Non-black non-ravens just aren't part of the presuppositions of 'all ravens are black' [Harré]
Contraposition may be equivalent in truth, but not true in nature, because of irrelevant predicates [Harré/Madden]
The items put forward by the contraposition belong within different natural clusters [Harré/Madden]
The possibility that all ravens are black is a law depends on a mechanism producing the blackness [Harré/Madden]
If something in ravens makes them black, it may be essential (definitive of ravens) [Lipton]
My shoes are not white because they lack some black essence of ravens [Lipton]
A theory may explain the blackness of a raven, but say nothing about the whiteness of shoes [Lipton]
We can't turn non-black non-ravens into ravens, to test the theory [Lipton]
To pick a suitable contrast to ravens, we need a hypothesis about their genes [Lipton]
If sentences point to different evidence, they must have different subject-matter [Yablo]
Most people say nonblack nonravens do confirm 'all ravens are black', but only a tiny bit [Yablo]
'All x are y' is equivalent to 'all non-y are non-x', so observing paper is white confirms 'ravens are black' [Mautner, by PG]
Observing irrelevant items supports both 'all x are y' and 'all x are non-y', revealing its absurdity [Schofield,J]