Carefully Reherse The Reasoning That Leads To The Paradox Of The Raven :: essays research papers

C arefully rehearse the reason out that leads to the Paradox of the Ravens. Is at that place a satisfactory conclusion?Throughout the scientific history of the world there have been many changes in the federal agency we think, in the way we perceive the world to work. Indeed theories that were held as determinedly true in the past now seem laughable, for example the system that the universe revolved around the Earth was deemed true by tout ensemble of the scholarly community of the time, until Galileo came along and proved otherwise. Such changes in prospect have lead people to be a little much cautious before giving commitment to certain scientific theories encase ten or fifteen years on the are turn up to be wrong. In at least some areas of science severalise is often fragmentary and inconclusive, therefore it would of benefit to be able to reckon more about the degree to which a given piece of indorse supports a given opening. In short to develop a vicenary account of the relationship between evidence and theory. Philosophy has sought to do this under the heading confirmation theory. They have tried sympathy to what extent various bodies of evidence confirm different theories. They do this so that if we know a piece of evidence highly confirms a theory then we are relatively safe in believing it to be true but should there only be a trivial degree of confirmation then we can moderate our trust accordingly. However, determination this intuitive notion of confirmation is not as straightforward as it may seem and one of the problems that stems from this is the Paradox of the Ravens.Starting with the assumption that there is a relationship of confirmation and that sometimes E confirms T, where E is some body of evidence and T is some theory. Then it seems logical to throw the following two assumptions about confirmation(1.) That generalizations are confirmed by their instances.OrIf E = (Fa & Ga) and T= All Fs are Gs, then E confirms T.(2.) If E confirms T, and T is logically equivalent to S, then E confirms S.At first glance these two simple statements of logic seem to be uncontentious, but they can easily be shown to generate a puzzle, as follows. (L) All ravens are black.(M) All non-black involvements are non-ravens.Notice that these two statements are logically equivalent. Now, take our evidence being the observation that(I) That white thing over there is a shoe.