It follows that every observation of something which is not black and also not a raven is evidence that ravens are black. This is patently absurd.
Well...no. I mean, first you have to prove that ravens exist in the first place. And then you have to look at everything else in existance and determine that all of the nonblack things that exist are not ravens. (Which may be what is meant above by "every observation," but the way it's worded, it sounds like they think looking at a carrot and realizing it's orange is proof that all ravens are black. Which is patently absurd, but it's not how logic works.)
JZ, are you still on house arrest?? I would seriously be bonkers by now. And I hate Doing Things.
Speaking of which, I really need to be neatening and straightening in preparation for going out of town, but ugh. Also packing, but that will take 10 minutes.
I am the laziest lazy who every lazed.
Also, I was ridiculously weirded out by leaving work for two days. I think it's because of the lack of lead time for mental preparation.
Woke up this morning with a pain in my hip(actually in the area where the leg meets the hip).
Ouch. I get that but it's tendonitis. Mine's been aching again and I am pretending that stretching is going to help. Don't wanna play with the big bad needles if I can help it.
First you have to prove that ravens exist in the first place. And then you have to look at everything else in existance and determine that all of the nonblack things that exist are not ravens
Although I'd wager that the existence of ravens can be assumed axiomatic (as can the definition of black, say) in this case, they don't need to exist for the bare logic to flow.
What we are assuming is that ravens are black--which means that all nonblack things are ravens, by definition. The paradox seems to arise when you try and prove that assumption by observation--every black raven should then carry the same supportive weight as every orange carrot.
Which...doesn't work. Which is what's absurd. And paradoxical. Or perhaps you could just not try and prove all ravens are black by pointing out black ravens.
At least I think that's what I mean. Gotta go back to Project.
Yeah. If you look at a carrot and notice it's orange, that does not
disprove
that all ravens are black, but that's it. Just because it doesn't disprove "all ravens are black" it it's not evidence that the statement is true. It's not "evidence" (in the classical logic sense) at all. (eta: it says nothing about the assertion either way, as it is not proof.) Jessica is right - the only possible evidence is either find one non-black raven and disprove the assertion, or find every nonblack thing that exists and show that they are not ravens, thus proving the assertion.
What we are assuming is that ravens are black--which means that all nonblack things are ravens, by definition. The paradox seems to arise when you try and prove that assumption by observation--every black raven should then carry the same supportive weight as every orange carrot.
But "this raven is black" doesn't prove that all ravens are black either, which is I guess where I'm getting hung up. It proves "Some A's are B's" not "All A's are B's" (And the same for the carrot -- one orange carrot proves that some non-ravens are non-black.) They carry equal weight, but neither of them is evidence enough to prove "all ravens are black."
(Has the word "raven" lost all meaning for anyone else, or just me? Raven raven raven.)
But "this raven is black" doesn't prove that all ravens are black either
That's true. Boolean logic is actually rather limited in the things you can do with it. I mean, it's great for computer programming and math and what-not, but in the real world, NSM.
