A Solution to the Raven Paradox: A Redefinition of the Notion of Instance

Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research 34 (1):99-109 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, I critically analyse two strands of Bayesian solution to the paradox: the standard Bayesian solution and the attempts to refute Nicod’s criterion. I argue that the standard Bayesian solution evades the exact challenge of the paradox. I hold that though the NC or instance confirmation is imprecisely formulated, it cannot be ruled out as an invalid form of confirmation. I formulate three conditions of instance confirmation which sufficiently captures our intuitive notion of instance confirmation. Finally on the basis of the conditions of instance confirmation, I show that paradoxical contrapositive instances like white shoe are not contrapositive instances of the raven hypothesis.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,505

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

“The Ravens Paradox” is a misnomer.Roger Clarke - 2010 - Synthese 175 (3):427-440.
A New Bayesian Solution to the Paradox of the Ravens.Susanna Rinard - 2014 - Philosophy of Science 81 (1):81-100.
Does the Bayesian solution to the paradox of confirmation really support Bayesianism?Brian Laetz - 2011 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (1):39-46.
Why Bayesians Needn’t Be Afraid of Observing Many Non-black Non-ravens.Florian F. Schiller - 2012 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 43 (1):77-88.
Hempel's Raven paradox: A lacuna in the standard bayesian solution.Peter B. M. Vranas - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (3):545-560.
Hempel's Paradox, Law‐likeness and Causal Relations.Severin Schroeder - 2009 - Philosophical Investigations 32 (3):244-263.
Confirmation, paradox, and logic.Leif Eriksen - 1989 - Philosophy of Science 56 (4):681-687.
Dissolving the star-tree paradox.Bengt Autzen - 2016 - Biology and Philosophy 31 (3):409-419.
Confirmation versus Falsificationism.Ray Scott Percival - 2015 - In Robin L. Cautin & Scott O. Lilienfeld (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-06-28

Downloads
39 (#578,816)

6 months
5 (#1,047,105)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Fact, Fiction, and Forecast.Nelson Goodman - 1955 - Philosophy 31 (118):268-269.
The paradox of confirmation.I. J. Good - 1961 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 12 (45):63-64.

Add more references