David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Ellery Eells & James Fetzer (eds.), The Place of Probability in Science. Springer. 247--275 (2010)
The Paradox of the Ravens (a.k.a,, The Paradox of Confirmation) is indeed an old chestnut. A great many things have been written and said about this paradox and its implications for the logic of evidential support. The first part of this paper will provide a brief survey of the early history of the paradox. This will include the original formulation of the paradox and the early responses of Hempel, Goodman, and Quine. The second part of the paper will describe attempts to resolve the paradox within a Bayesian framework, and show how to improve upon them. This part begins with a discussion of how probabilistic methods can help to clarify the statement of the paradox itself. And it describes some of the early responses to probabilistic explications. We then inspect the assumptions employed by traditional (canonical) Bayesian approaches to the paradox. These assumptions may appear to be overly strong. So, drawing on weaker assumptions, we formulate a new-and-improved Bayesian confirmation-theoretic resolution of the Paradox of the Ravens.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Brian Laetz (2011). Does the Bayesian Solution to the Paradox of Confirmation Really Support Bayesianism? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (1):39-46.
Florian F. Schiller (2012). Why Bayesians Needn't Be Afraid of Observing Many Non-Black Non-Ravens. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43 (1):77-88.
Bruno Carbonaro & Federica Vitale (2013). The Raven Paradox Revisited in Terms of Random Variables. Erkenntnis 78 (4):763-795.
Jan Sprenger (2011). Hypothetico-Deductive Confirmation. Philosophy Compass 6 (7):497-508.
Jan Sprenger (2013). A Synthesis of Hempelian and Hypothetico-Deductive Confirmation. Erkenntnis 78 (4):727-738.
Similar books and articles
Severin Schroeder (2009). Hempel's Paradox, Law-Likeness and Causal Relations. Philosophical Investigations 32 (3):244-263.
Victor DiFate, Evidence. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Ronald N. Giere (1970). An Orthodox Statistical Resolution of the Paradox of Confirmation. Philosophy of Science 37 (3):354-362.
Mark Siebel (2004). Der Rabe Und der Bayesianist. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 35 (2):313 - 329.
Malcolm R. Forster (1994). Non-Bayesian Foundations for Statistical Estimation, Prediction, and the Ravens Example. Erkenntnis 40 (3):357 - 376.
Patrick Maher (2005). Qualitative Confirmation and the Ravens Paradox. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 83 (1):89-108.
Branden Fitelson (2006). The Paradox of Confirmation. Philosophy Compass 1 (1):95–113.
Roger Clarke (2010). “The Ravens Paradox” is a Misnomer. Synthese 175 (3):427-440.
Branden Fitelson & James Hawthorne (2010). How Bayesian Confirmation Theory Handles the Paradox of the Ravens. In Ellery Eells & James Fetzer (eds.), The Place of Probability in Science. Springer. 247--275.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads55 ( #29,631 of 1,102,449 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #121,593 of 1,102,449 )
How can I increase my downloads?