The fact that a raven is black doesn't mean mathmatically all non-black things are Non-ravens. — Qwex
l You're misunderstanding the relationship between Popper and Hempel. Popper uses Hempel's paradox as a disproof of confirmationism, not as a consequence of falsificationism. Hempel's paradox only follows from confirmationist inference, and the absurdities it leads to are a reason Popper gives to reject confirmationism, leaving falsificationism instead.
You're correct that under a confirmationist view, the non-existence of unicorns would be reason to believe the existence of God. And that is absurd. Which is why you should reject confirmationism, like Popper does. — Pfhorrest
Observing green apples, red tomatos, etc. i.e. non-black non-ravens doesn't falsify the claim R1 because these observations don't falsify claim R2 and R1 is equivalent to R2. If so, then R1 remains unfalsified ... — TheMadFool
... and should be, if there are direct confirmatory observations e.g. a considerable number of black raven observations, considered as a scientific claim - true for all intents and purposes. — TheMadFool
Not so correct according to a falsificationist like Popper. — Pfhorrest
Observing 3 black ravens would suggest a pattern viz. R1 = all ravens are black. — TheMadFool
Popper's whole falsificationist program is saying that "confirmatory evidence" is no evidence at all. — Pfhorrest
It's absurd to think that green apples tell you anything about the relationship between ravens and blackness. — Pfhorrest
you nothing at all about whether or not all ravens are black: it's still a possibility, but it already was a possibility. It's not until you find a non-black raven that anything changes. — Pfhorrest
I'm not saying you are. Anyway, very helpful. Thanks. :up:NB that I’m not trying to argue for falsificationism here (though I do support it), just clarifying what it is and how it’s related to Hempel’s paradox. Hempel was not a falsificationist but a “hypothetico-deductivist” (which became the standard type of confirmationism, before “confirmationism” was a word). — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.