Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:43:23.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inductive Logic and the Ravens Paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Patrick Maher
Patrick Maher*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hempel's paradox of the ravens arises from the inconsistency of three prima facie plausible principles of confirmation. This paper uses Camapian inductive logic to (a) identify which of the principles is false, (b) give insight into why this principle is false, and (c) identify a true principle that is sufficiently similar to the false one that failure to distinguish the two might explain why the false principle is prima facie plausible. This solution to the paradox is compared with a variety of other responses and is shown to differ from all of them.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , March 1999, pp. 50 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Illinois, 105 Gregory Hall, 810 South Wright Street, Urbana, IL 61801.

References

Alexander, H. G. (1958), “The Paradoxes of Confirmation”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 9: 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1950), Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Second edition 1962.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1952), The Continuum of Inductive Methods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1971), “A Basic System of Inductive Logic, Part I”, in Carnap, Rudolf and Jeffrey, Richard C. (eds.), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf (1980), “A Basic System of Inductive Logic, Part II”, in Jeffrey, Richard C. (ed.), Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, vol. 2. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Earman, John (1992), Bayes or Bust? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gaifman, Haim (1979), “Subjective Probability, Natural Predicates and Hempel's Ravens”, Erkenntnis 14: 105–147.Google Scholar
Good, I. J. (1960), “The Paradox of Confirmation”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 11: 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, I. J. (1967), “The White Shoe is a Red Herring”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 17: 322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, I. J. (1968), “The White Shoe qua Herring is Pink” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19: 156–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson (1954), Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1945), “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation”, Mind 54. (Page references are to the reprint in Hempel 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. (1967), “The White Shoe: No Red Herring”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 18: 239–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, Paul (1982), Probability and Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hosiasson-Lindenbaum, Janina (1940), “On Confirmation”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 5: 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howson, Colin and Urbach, Peter (1993), Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach, 2nd ed. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Humburg, Jürgen (1986), “The Solution of Hempel's Raven Paradox in Rudolf Carnap's System of Inductive Logic”, Erkenntnis 24: 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1963), “The Paradox of Confirmation”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13: 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, Patrick (1996), “Subjective and Objective Confirmation”, Philosophy of Science 63: 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkrantz, R. D. (1982), “Does the Philosophy of Induction Rest on a Mistake?”, Journal of Philosophy 79: 78–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, Patrick (1966), “A Bayesian Approach to the Paradoxes of Confirmation”, in Hintikka, Jaakko and Suppes, Patrick (eds.), Aspects of Inductive Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, R. G. (1971), “The Paradoxes of Confirmation—a Survey”, American Philosophical Quarterly 8: 318–329.Google Scholar