Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Raven Paradox

Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 11:08:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...
I learned about this recently, I thought it was pretty awesome :D

I don't know how well-known this is and what popular opinion of it is, so pardon me, but:
What do y'all think of this? Have you heard of it before?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2010 11:29:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Concerning the problem of induction, Popper replied with his idea of falsification (which any scientist is familiar with). Though there are competing theories to this theory, which many people don't seem to know about, I haven't read enough about the philosophy of science to be sure. As for the logical problems in the raven paradox, I can't make an educated opinion either - philosophy of logic and philosophic logic isn't one of my favorite.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 12:06:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Why isn't this just a case of denying the consequent? A valid logical argument.

If P then Q
~Q
.: ~P

If raven then black.
Not Black
.: Not raven.

==

As Skeptic points out, it's more a case of inductive error of reasoning in empirics, a general rule from individual instances and relates to falsifiability. The inductivist approach is to treat individual cases and infer a universal claim. To do so however is deductively flawed.

There is a real life example, where the statement applied to swans (All swans are white), which was treated as a universal claim till reports back from Australia in the 1800s indicated otherwise.

As for our poor ravens, albino cases exist. :P
deathdebater
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 4:36:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
(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

Only other ravens can be used as evidence supporting the hypothesis that all ravens are black. Everything else is frankly irrelevant.

Furthermore:
(3) Nevermore, my pet raven, is black.
is clearly evidence supporting the hypothesis that all ravens are black.

Biased Sample Fallacy
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 6:11:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 4:36:26 AM, deathdebater wrote:
(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

Only other ravens can be used as evidence supporting the hypothesis that all ravens are black. Everything else is frankly irrelevant.

Not wholly in this case. The apple supports the 'black' side of the case. You can't however draw the conclusion from apple > raven. I think the wiki mentioned it under 'small bits' or something similar.
deathdebater
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 6:44:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 6:11:30 AM, Puck wrote:
Not wholly in this case. The apple supports the 'black' side of the case. You can't however draw the conclusion from apple > raven. I think the wiki mentioned it under 'small bits' or something similar.

I still disagree. Anti-evidence =/= evidence. Such would be saying that not finding unicorns in my closet(in the US) is evidence that Unicorns only exist in France.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 7:38:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am far too stupid to understand this, as far as I can tell the basic premise of this is logically flawed. If a paradox emerges then that is irrelevant because the premise is a non-starter.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 7:56:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 7:38:28 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If a paradox emerges then that is irrelevant because the premise is a non-starter.

There is no real paradox for the exercise itself.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 7:57:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 6:44:23 AM, deathdebater wrote:

I still disagree. Anti-evidence =/= evidence. Such would be saying that not finding unicorns in my closet(in the US) is evidence that Unicorns only exist in France.

Not analogous. Maybe if the claim was, Unicorns (assuming existence I suppose) only live in France.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 7:59:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 7:57:21 AM, Puck wrote:
At 1/6/2010 6:44:23 AM, deathdebater wrote:

I still disagree. Anti-evidence =/= evidence. Such would be saying that not finding unicorns in my closet(in the US) is evidence that Unicorns only exist in France.

Not analogous. Maybe if the claim was, Unicorns (assuming existence I suppose) only live in France.

Eh, assuming 'only live in France' isn't part of the original claim I mean.

Like I said it's an inductive error, your example provides a singular experience in support, that =/= a universal claim.
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 2:40:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
-- I am going to echo the previous conclusion that this is not a paradox.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2010 6:52:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/6/2010 4:36:26 AM, deathdebater wrote:
(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

Only other ravens can be used as evidence supporting the hypothesis that all ravens are black. Everything else is frankly irrelevant.
No. Upon seeing an unknown object that is not black, the black raven hypothesis says that it will not be a raven. If under further examination it is a raven, then the hypothesis is falsified. If not, it is strengthened (very slightly).


Furthermore:
(3) Nevermore, my pet raven, is black.
is clearly evidence supporting the hypothesis that all ravens are black.

Biased Sample Fallacy
No. It is evidence, it just isn't enough to deduce that the hypothesis is true. It simply shifts the odds of the hypothesis further towards being likely true.

For instance, let's say there are 50 ravens. We've seen 5 ravens before, and they were all black. The likelihood of the raven hypothesis right now is X. If we then observe another raven, and it happens to be non-black, the hypothesis is falsified. If it is black, the hypothesis is strengthened.

The sheer fact that an observation could have falsified the hypothesis but did not will mathematically always strengthen the hypothesis.