Hempel’s Raven Revisited

Journal of Philosophy 118 (3):113-137 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The paper takes a novel approach to a classic problem—Hempel’s Raven Paradox. A standard approach to it supposes the solution to consist in bringing our inductive logic into “reflective equilibrium” with our intuitive judgements about which inductive inferences we should license. This approach leaves the intuitions as a kind of black box and takes it on faith that, whatever the structure of the intuitions inside that box might be, it is one for which we can construct an isomorphic formal edifice, a system of inductive logic. By popping open the box we can see whether that faith is misplaced. I aim, therefore, to characterize our pre-theoretical, intuitive understanding of generalizations like “ravens are black” and argue that, intuitively, we take them to mean, for instance: “ravens are black by some indeterminate yet characteristic means.” I motivate and explicate this formulation and bring it to bear on Hempel’s Problem.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Does the Bayesian solution to the paradox of confirmation really support Bayesianism?Brian Laetz - 2011 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1 (1):39-46.
Studies in the logic of K -onfirmation.Clayton Peterson - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (2):437-471.
Why Bayesians Needn’t Be Afraid of Observing Many Non-black Non-ravens.Florian F. Schiller - 2012 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 43 (1):77-88.
The paradox of confirmation.Branden Fitelson - 2006 - Philosophy Compass 1 (1):95–113.
The Raven Paradox.John-Michael Kuczynski - 2016 - Amazon Digital Services LLC.
Hempel's Raven paradox: A lacuna in the standard bayesian solution.Peter B. M. Vranas - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (3):545-560.
Herapel and Instantial Confirmation.P. H. Wiebe - 1976 - Philosophy Research Archives 2:59-70.
The paradoxes of confirmation and the nature of natural laws.L. Goddard - 1977 - Philosophical Quarterly 27 (107):97-113.
On the equivalence of Goodman’s and Hempel’s paradoxes.Kenneth Boyce - 2014 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 45:32-42.
Explanation, confirmation, and Hempel's paradox.William Roche - 2017 - In Kevin McCain & Ted Poston (eds.), Best explanations: New essays on inference to the best explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 219-241.
Goodman, 'grue' and Hempel.C. A. Hooker - 1968 - Philosophy of Science 35 (3):232-247.
Confirmation and prediction.G. H. Merrill - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (1):98-117.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-04-03

Downloads
547 (#33,059)

6 months
155 (#21,656)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andrew Bollhagen
University of California, San Diego

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Thinking about mechanisms.Peter Machamer, Lindley Darden & Carl F. Craver - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (1):1-25.
Causation: One word, many things.Nancy Cartwright - 2004 - Philosophy of Science 71 (5):805-819.
Ceteris Paribus Hedges: Causal Voodoo that Works.Michael Strevens - 2012 - Journal of Philosophy 109 (11):652-675.

Add more references