How well can you explain this problem Veeky Forums? No this is not homework. Without the use of wikipedia or any other research how can you explain the problem. I will give you what you need from the wiki.
Hempel describes the paradox in terms of the hypothesis:
(1) All ravens are black.
Via contraposition, this statement is equivalent to:
(2) If something is not black, then it is not a raven.
Try to refrain from being outright if you can, it's a simple paradox.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
OP here, post other problems.
>inb4 Monty Hall
>my hair is black im a raven
fuck you they are purpl/blue anyways. I picture anyone that identifies with ravens as wearing trench coats and those are for faggots therefore op is one
What problem? Beyond the false premise, of course? The statements ARE equivalent.
we wuzz ravens an shiet
The paradox is between intuition and logical reasoning.
You intuition is you know all ravens are black, you use reasoning such as -
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Socrates is mortal
If something's not black, then it is not a raven. You observe a green apple, something not black and not a raven, since both statements are true, you have just learnt from looking at an apple that all ravens are black.
How?
That's the problem between intuition and logical reasoning.
>you have just learnt from looking at an apple that all ravens are black.
or you have confirmed.
I see the problem.
All ravens are not black. For instance, if a Raven falls into a can of paint.
You can't prove anything about the real world thru reason and logic, you have to use facts. All you've done is played a word game. All you've "learned" from looking at the apple is that it's an apple, you've merely "inferred" that it must not be a raven. But if scientists one day discover a green, apple-shaped species of raven, then you would see that your inference was wrong because your premise was not grounded in reality, but was merely a word game.
There are in fact white ravens. But OP is not actually talking about ravens, he using "ravens and black" in the same way a mathematician might use "x and y".
Forgot my pic
You don't understand the problem. It is not a word game. Simply change Raven to anything in the universe that has that one singular color, hell color doesn't even matter. It's a problem between two types of information, intuition which is knowledge you don't know how you acquired and logical reasoning, which is reasoning using logical systems.
It really has nothing to do with anything being black or ravens, they are simply the premises.
I understand it, I don;t see what the problem is. If your preconceptions say "this is x" but the facts say "this is y", then it's y and you were just wrong. If you think "seeing this apple proves that all ravens are black", and then see an albino raven, guess what, you were simply wrong. Reality > your opinion.
Dude, I don't think you're supposed to call them black. I think they prefer Afro-Corvid
>If you think "seeing this apple proves that all ravens are black", and then see an albino raven, guess what, you were simply wrong.
See you are still playing the word game senpai, the problem assumes a thing which is black and only black. You just don't understand it yet.
Stop thinking about ravens and black, think about an object you 'know' (put your intuition in play even if its imagination) exists which is one shade of one colour which only exists in that object.
Play the problem again. It's simply not a word game, it's not 'mine'. It demonstrates a paradox.
(1) OP is a faggot
Via contraposition, this statement is equivalent to:
(2) If someone is not a faggot, then they are not OP
There are no (0) things that have only one property unique to themselves. Any statements of this kind are shortcuts at best ("most" ravens are black") or outright guesses. They can't tell you anything abut reality-as-she-is, for that you have to go look. They are, simply, word games.
Nice cop out.
Here is how a mathematician might approach this problem (which proves it correct), you've just said not all ravens are black. Keep in mind, for all your deflection, this hypothesis simply works, and the real cop out is that looking at a green apple confirms ravens are black but in such a small manner it is pointless to do so, and it's better to just get a black raven.
I don't understand the question
If all x posses y
Then it cannot be x unless it possesses y
You are just saying the same thing in a slightly different manner. Where is the paradox?
>You are just saying the same thing in a slightly different manner. Where is the paradox?
>You observe a green apple, something not black and not a raven, since both statements are true, you have just learnt from looking at an apple that all ravens are black.
>That's the problem between intuition and logical reasoning.
That's not a paradox and there is no problem, and it is not a paradox because there is no problem.
You did not learn from the apple all ravens were black, you already knew it as in this hypothetical you only knew 2 things and that was 50% of your knowledge.
Is my intuition supposed to conclude that all ravens are black from the sight of the apple?
the first statement isn't a complete sentence and those mathematical formulas were meant to describe lines on a graph, not worldly phenemon found in nature. So its a game of symentaics the lieks of which youd find in postmodern trite works like your heroic fake-news authors
>You did not learn from the apple all ravens were black
Why do people like you exist? This is a readily accepted paradox. But nah, you totes get it right.
No, through your intuition you know all ravens are black and using logical reasoning via looking at a green apple you can confirm it.
I completely missed this paradox during my philosophy lessons but I take it would be part of epistemology but I get the gist of it and it seems to be a matter of justification.
If I get this right, logically, anything that isn't black is a justification for that all ravens are black.
Two scientists are investigating if all ravens are black. One of them decide to examine the local population of ravens. He find 20 of them and notice how all of them are black. The other person goes to a local market and check a bubble gum machine and see 200 bubble gums. Counting bubble gums, that doesn't seem to have anything to do with ravens, strengthens his evidence that all ravens are black and he's just as good scientists as the guy who are scouting after actual ravens.
You can make it even more extreme. All Bamboozles are black. You have no idea what a Bamboozle is. So you start counting bubble gums again. And sure enough, this somehow strengthens your belief that all Balmboozles are black.
This guy explains it well. Any other logical problems you might know of?
What exactly makes this a paradox? There's nothing inherently contradictory in the second statement.
Well, they were
>What exactly makes this a paradox? There's nothing inherently contradictory in the second statement.
The two statements are logically correct, the second statement is a logical conversion of the first called a contraposition, which means (from google definition)
conversion of a proposition from all A is B (all ravens are black) to all not-B is not-A. (If something is not black, then it is not a raven.)
(en.wikipedia.org
The paradox is the fact that you confirm all ravens are black via looking at a green apple or anything that is not black and not a raven, since the statement all ravens are black is correct.
Not even a paradox, just a misuse of language.
>This sentence is true
>The above sentence is false.
Which one is true? It makes no sense. It's not a paradox.
>not fitting muh logic is a problem
Fuck off and don't come back
All ravens are black
I have black shoes
Not all blacks are raven
The only reason you have a paradox is because of the wording. A truer statement is "all ravens should be black." This includes the unlikely but possible case that a raven got dunked into a paint can.
>If something is not black, then it is not a raven.
Not
>if something is black, then it is a raven.
>whoa this is the power of philosophy
Epistemology and non religious metaphysics should be burned in a pile. Useless and the people who practice it are so caught up in their word sudoku they can't even tell how pointless and retarded it is
>formal logic is a philosophy
'no'.
It's a set of rules which governs essentially everything in this modern world, from computing to the government systems in place which cleans the shit from your toilet.
>All Ravens are black
This is false, I often see gray ravens, that look like magpies, but gray instead of white.
Literally no you 1st year philosophy student. I guarantee if you try and program something based on the above example it will be shit. It one assumes blackness is the sole descriptor and qualifier of what makes something a raven. It doesn't so the whole "problem" falls apart. Diogenes debunked this thousands of years ago yet "modern philosophers" still argue about it like there's something to argue.
You do not understand logic if you are saying you cannot implement the above problem into a computing language. I mean obviously? You are disregarded the logical principles at play.
>Diogenes debunked this thousands of years ago yet "modern philosophers" still argue about it like there's something to argue.
Again, 'no'. The hypothesis appeared in 1940's and has been proven since then to simply work. The people who are arguing (you), simply do not understand logical systems and the paradox that is at play.
>It one assumes blackness is the sole descriptor and qualifier of what makes something a raven.
Black and raven are two interchangeable (so long as they are true related qualities) premises used to show how logical reasoning can contradict intuition. You simply do not understand this problem and you cannot understand this problem if you are stuck on 'black' and 'raven'.
>ravens steal all the time
>ravens are scavengers
>when ravens talk, it's always some heavily accented gibberish
>ravens are noisy and chase other birds away
Truly, they are Afro-Corvid.
It doesn't govern anything you redditor.
>through your intuition you know all ravens are black
Absolute nonsense, you know this thru your senses or because someone told you (ie, thru your senses).
>using logical reasoning via looking at a green apple you can confirm it.
Only because you have ALREADY defined them so! What gibberish is this?
>All ravens are black
Starting with subject, making a description.
>If something is not black, then it is not a raven.
Starts with a description, makes a conclusion.
It's not a paradox. It's a stupid assumption that one sentence is the equivalent of another, where the first sentence is an observation of known facts, while the second sentence is a conclusion based on observation.
>The paradox is the fact that you confirm all ravens are black via looking at a green apple or anything that is not black and not a raven, since the statement all ravens are black is correct.
No all you can deduce is that since the apple is not black, it's not a raven. It doesn't tell you anything at all about RAVENS.
>how logical reasoning can contradict intuition
So? Why is this a problem, much less a contradiction? Intuition is a terrible guide for how things work, reason is barely better, fortunately we can look at the facts and settle things that way.
>premise 1: OP is a faggot
>contraposition: If it's not a faggot, it's not OP
>conclusion: By fapping to this heterosexual shemale porn, I conclude that OP is a faggot
Hey it does work! Kudo OP, you solve philosophy!
Oh look a trip fag who didn't read the thread. Please read the thread. As stated the contradiction is not in OP, it's in the thread but I asked if you could explain it, obviously you couldn't.
>while the second sentence is a conclusion based on observation.
The second sentence is a contraposition of the first, if you read the thread you would have a definition of what a contraposition is and how it affects logical systems.
See above, read the thread.
See above, read thread.
You're understanding of the second sentence is not alone in it's right. The second sentence and first are linked intrinsically. All ravens are Black is the hypothesis, it is turned into If it is not black, it is not a raven through contraposition (logical reasoning). If 2 is true than 1 is true and vice versa. That is how logic and contra positioning works. If you are saying no that's not how it works, you are literally arguing against traditional logic.
I can say you do not understand it, but you cannot say I am wrong, I am not wrong, I am a parrot. This is not "mine" in anyway, nowhere have I said it, and saying this is my idea and it's gibberish is a cop out to avoid approaching the problem logically.
>The second sentence and first are linked intrinsically.
Because you defined them that way!
>All ravens are Black is the hypothesis
No, it's a premise.
>it is turned into If it is not black, it is not a raven through contraposition (logical reasoning).
>If 2 is true than 1 is true and vice versa.
Okay. So?
>Because you defined them that way!
No I did not, Carl Gustav Hempel created HIS hypothesis "All Ravens are Black" in the 40's (something you would know if you read the thread)
>Okay. So?
>No all you can deduce is that since the apple is not black, it's not a raven. It doesn't tell you anything at all about RAVENS.
See picture.
>Logical equivalence between two propositions means that they are true together or false together.
If something is not black and not a Raven, therefore Ravens are black. That's the logical reasoning as proof by observing something not black and not a raven. But obviously, you cannot do that, though logically, it's correct.
The paradox, as explained about 50 times through this thread.
Again, are you actually trying to deny traditional logic?
This paradox was essentially resolved with the advent of Bayesian probability. Observing a non-black non-raven DOES add to the probability that all ravens are black, but the number is near-zero. Whereas observing a black raven adds substantially more probability to the hypothesis that all ravens are black.
>but the number is near-zero. Whereas observing a black raven adds substantially more probability to the hypothesis that all ravens are black.
Not if we lived in a universe where black ravens outnumbered everything more than 2:1.
Yes. If you see a paradox here it's because you're either too stupid to semantically interpret a logical proposition or so desperate for a publication that you don't care.
>so desperate for a publication that you don't care.
Lel.
>This is not "mine" in anyway, nowhere have I said it, and saying this is my idea and it's gibberish is a cop out to avoid approaching the problem logically.
Why do you think the Raven Paradox was something invented by an user online?
You would just assign a different prior probability then.
t.elitists who overthink the walls of the box they are in, and think they're enlightened.
There's no paradox.
This "confirming" bullshit is retarded and just wrong.
Think of it like this. You have a room and inside that room are 4 black ravens and 7 other things which are not black ravens.
The 4 black ravens are black and ravens.
The 7 everything else are not black AND not ravens, they can be black anythings so long as they are NOT black ravens.
by looking at the 7 other things you proving the hypothesis ravens are black by eliminating everything that is not black and not a raven and by NOT observing something which is NOT black and a Raven.
>NOT black ravens.
Or any other colored raven. But that's beside the point, the point isn't to actually prove the hypothesis, it's that you logically can.
I dont understand what the problem is here
>mfw OP is a faggot but the thread still turns out good
Don't know how you did it, mate.
Crows are the black stereotype in cartoons. But then crows are actually hyper-intelligent.
I did 30 secs of googling and it seems that contraposition is an inherently fallacious inference.
The second question is a not sequitur. If the premise were "all that is black is a raven", the second would follow as inferred.
Just because all ravens are black does not exclude other objects from sharing that property.
non-sequitur*
>Just because all ravens are black does not exclude other objects from sharing that property.
Not what the problem is about. The point is there are no non-black ravens, ALL ravens are black, not all things which are black are ravens.
The contraposition, for the 50th time of -
All ravens are black
Is
If something is not black, then it is not a raven. (all ravens are black)
Anything can be black and can not be a raven, if you find something which is not black and a raven the hypothesis (All ravens are black) is false. But again, proving the hypothesis isn't actually the point.
the point is by observing something which is unrelated you can prove something else. By observing a green apple, you are not observing a raven which is not black, so you have added to the chances of the hypothesis being correct. Although you still haven't looked at a black raven, you just haven't found a non black raven.
>I did 30 secs of googling and it seems that contraposition is an inherently fallacious inference.
Simply flat out wrong.
I misread the OP
.....................,,-'´ . . . _,,,,,';:-,...................
....................,-(c\ \`;-=´,_,-~-, \`...............
..................,/ . . .¯'\, º ,/.'-~°,' .¯`'-,.............
................../ . . . . . .¯,_ ~--~',, . . .'\..........
.................| . . . . . . . . ¯¨¨¨(___((__мaяijuana___() ڪے
.................| . . . . . . . , . . . .`'-, . . . |..........
................/\ . . . . . . ."-,,,-'~-~' . . . '|..........
.............,/'`\,`'-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /\..........
░░░░█▀▀░█▀█░█▀▀░░█▀▀░░█▀█░▀█▀░░░░
░░░░█▀▀░█▀█░█░▀█░█░▀█░█░█░░█░░░░░
░░░░▀░░░▀░▀░▀▀▀▀░▀▀▀▀░▀▀▀░░▀░░░░░
If the contents of the room is everything that exists (for the purpose of "all ravens" and "all non-black things"), then everything is correct and there is no paradox. If not, then you haven't proved anything about the given statements by looking at the objects in the room and I'm not sure why you would think you had.
>then everything is correct and there is no paradox.
The paradox is essentially not around anymore as an user said in this thread it's pretty much true, but not a smart way to go about your study.
(en.wikipedia.org
It was solved, but people, as evidenced in this thread still cannot wrap their heads around it.
You are mixing up a hypothesis and a logical statement.
No.
The statement "all ravens are black" is most certainly a hypothesis as it is neither true nor false and the experiment which follows determines whether or not it is true or false. I mean again, it's not my hypothesis.