structure for 'Science'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     expand these ideas

14. Science / C. Induction / 5. Paradoxes of Induction / b. Raven paradox

[problem irrelevant evidence for a general law]

16 ideas
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]
Non-black non-ravens just aren't part of the presuppositions of 'all ravens are black' [Harré]
It is because ravens are birds that their species and their colour might be connected [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]