Sheikwonder:
You've used the term "bad logic" for another paradox,wow!
You must be a master logician!


So,the original premise:

"All ravens are black" is faulty.

Normally,I'd ask you if you've ever seen a non-black one before,and I expect that your answer would be along the line of:

"Because I haven't seen a non-black raven before does not mean that all ravens are black,absence of evidence must not be misconstrued as evidence of absence".


The problem of course with this reasoning of yours is that anything can be disproved in this way.

For example,consider the statement:

"All men are mortal"

One could by your logic,argue that it is a faulty statement,because its logical equivalent would be:

"All non-men are non-mortal"

So summarily,one can conclude that "dogs are immortal".

But of course,you and I know that the above is absurd. The paradox arises because of logical equivalence. Your claim that the premise is wrong is wrong.

Various solutions to this paradox abound,see wikipedia for

There are ravens that are not black. For instance, the pied raven.

Secondly, I mentioned that inductive reasoning has its limits. There were other problems with the logical argument of the raven paradox but I didnt want to explain too much.

It is not a paradox. That is all that matters.

AllNaijaBlogger:



There are ravens that are not black. For instance, the pied raven.

Secondly, I mentioned that inductive reasoning has its limits. There were other problems with the logical argument of the raven paradox but I didnt want to explain too much.

It is not a paradox. That is all that matters.

First,the Pied raven is extinct so my premise is still very correct.

Second,this paradox was created to explain certain limitations in the scientific method.

This is a deliberately simplistic example, but it lays bare what the first step in the scientific method, commonly understood, really amounts to: one makes observations, and forms an inductive hypothesis. The next step, of course, is experimentation to confirm or refute the hypothesis—and it is here that the trouble occurs. In a case like this, experimentation amounts to observing as many ravens as possible, and confirming that they are all black.[It is for this reason that we term it a "confirmation" paradox.]

It is impossible, even in principle, to observe every raven, for many no longer exist, many do not yet exist, and it is conceivable that there are creatures one would also wish to call ravens that exist in inaccessible places, such as other planets. There are always limits to an experimental apparatus, even if the apparatus is just a matter of observing as many ravens as possible to check their color.

It is important to understand that a hypothesis is confirmed by any propositions that offer evidence to suggest that it is likely. For example, black clouds in the sky increase the likelihood that it will rain today. Although such a proposition does not prove this, the evidence it provides is enough. So as a rule; A generalisation is confirmed by its instances.

Now as regards logical equivalence which I stated earlier, If two hypotheses are known a priori to be equivalent, then any data which confirms one confirms the other.

Rather than inundate this thread with a lengthy discourse on logic,I would implore you to visit the following links for better understanding:

http://platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/Hempels-Ravens-Paradox

http://imogenation.net/degree-ba-philosophy/ravens-paradox/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

Sheikwonder:



First,the Pied raven is extinct so my premise is still very correct.

[size=14pt]Second,this paradox was created to explain certain limitations in the scientific method[/size].

This is a deliberately simplistic example, but it lays bare what the first step in the scientific method, commonly understood, really amounts to: one makes observations, and forms an inductive hypothesis. The next step, of course, is experimentation to confirm or refute the hypothesis—and it is here that the trouble occurs. In a case like this, experimentation amounts to observing as many ravens as possible, and confirming that they are all black.[It is for this reason that we term it a "confirmation" paradox.]

It is impossible, even in principle, to observe every raven, for many no longer exist, many do not yet exist, and it is conceivable that there are creatures one would also wish to call ravens that exist in inaccessible places, such as other planets. There are always limits to an experimental apparatus, even if the apparatus is just a matter of observing as many ravens as possible to check their color.

It is important to understand that a hypothesis is confirmed by any propositions that offer evidence to suggest that it is likely. For example, black clouds in the sky increase the likelihood that it will rain today. Although such a proposition does not prove this, the evidence it provides is enough. So as a rule; A generalisation is confirmed by its instances.

Now as regards logical equivalence which I stated earlier, If two hypotheses are known a priori to be equivalent, then any data which confirms one confirms the other.

Rather than inundate this thread with a lengthy discourse on logic,I would implore you to visit the following links for better understanding:

http://platonicrealms.com/encyclopedia/Hempels-Ravens-Paradox

http://imogenation.net/degree-ba-philosophy/ravens-paradox/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

A paradox needs to meet certain criteria

-Two contradictory ideas that relate to each other
-The two ideas must remain true or logically sound despite the contradiction,


Does the raven argument sound like it is logically sound? It is a fallacious argument used to show the problem or limitations with inductive reasoning.



And oh, there are white ravens. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461265/Three-rare-white-ravens-rescued-deaths-clutch.html



======================

If you are to prove me wrong. Put forward the two contradictory but true ideas forth

AllNaijaBlogger:




A paradox needs to meet certain criteria

-Two contradictory ideas that relate to each other
-The two ideas must remain true or logically sound despite the contradiction,


Does the raven argument sound like it is logically sound? It is a fallacious argument used to show the problem or limitations with inductive reasoning.



And oh, there are white ravens. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-461265/Three-rare-white-ravens-rescued-deaths-clutch.html



======================

If you are to prove me wrong. Put forward the two contradictory but true ideas forth

Beautiful.....at least we agree on something,the paradox shows limitations of inductive reasoning. In fact,I wonder what Hempel,the originator of the paradox,would say about your "white ravens".

I don't know if you ever were a science student. In science,we deal so much in generalizations. For instance,one could say that "all sodium salts burn with a distinct yellow glow". This means that for any salt of sodium to be classified thus,it would have to pass this test. This generalization is based on the fact that chemists from time past,till the present moment have observed that all salts of sodium burn with a yellow flame.In fact,if I should burn sodium trioxocarbonate (IV) now,and I get that yellow flame, it merely reinforces the generalisation.


Suppose however,someone discovered an allotrope of sodium,which does not conform to this rule,which burns with a blue flame for example,what would become of our generalisation? Would we all of a sudden discard it?

The obvious answer would be that we would want to find out what makes this particular allotrope different. If it was one isolated incident,we could explain it away as a freak incident probably resulting from a tweaking of the said compound. If we observe though that various of such incidents occur,we can no longer avoid the inevitable conclusion that not all sodium salts burn yellow. This is in line with the scientific method.


Now why is the raven paradox,a paradox?

Please note as earlier stated that this paradox is simplistic in nature.With that in mind,I will proceed.

-The first criteria which you listed was "two contradictory ideas that relate to each other."

-The second was that "the two ideas must remain true or logically sound despite the contradiction."


1. All ravens are black [true as at Hempel's time of writing]

2. All non-black things are non-ravens [also true by logical equivalence]

3. Therefore,the existence of my blue jacket and gray pants also confirm the statement 'All ravens are black.'



They are logically sound because the premises are valid.

So,the Paradox here is that the two statements or premises while valid,lead to a conclusion that seem at odds with their premise.


Similarly, I could say:

1. All Men are mortal.

2. AllNaijaBlogger is a man.

3. Therefore,AllNaijaBlogger is mortal.



Now if you believe in the bible,and take into account isolated events such as the stories of Enoch and Elijah,who by scriptural accounts did not die,then you could argue that the first premise is false. However,are those 2 events reason enough to invalidate that generalization despite the fact that hundreds of billions of men have died since? For us to even consider that,we would need more instances of that happening.Only then would we consider revisiting our premise.

Sheikwonder:



Beautiful.....at least we agree on something,the paradox shows limitations of inductive reasoning. In fact,I wonder what Hempel,the originator of the paradox,would say about your "white ravens".

I don't know if you ever were a science student. In science,we deal so much in generalizations. For instance,one could say that "all sodium salts burn with a distinct yellow glow". This means that for any salt of sodium to be classified thus,it would have to pass this test. This generalization is based on the fact that chemists from time past,till the present moment have observed that all salts of sodium burn with a yellow flame.In fact,if I should burn sodium trioxocarbonate (IV) now,and I get that yellow flame, it merely reinforces the generalisation.


Suppose however,someone discovered an allotrope of sodium,which does not conform to this rule,which burns with a blue flame for example,what would become of our generalisation? Would we all of a sudden discard it?

The obvious answer would be that we would want to find out what makes this particular allotrope different. If it was one isolated incident,we could explain it away as a freak incident probably resulting from a tweaking of the said compound. If we observe though that various of such incidents occur,we can no longer avoid the inevitable conclusion that not all sodium salts burn yellow. This is in line with the scientific method.


Now why is the raven paradox,a paradox?

Please note as earlier stated that this paradox is simplistic in nature.With that in mind,I will proceed.

-The first criteria which you listed was "two contradictory ideas that relate to each other."

-The second was that "the two ideas must remain true or logically sound despite the contradiction."


1. All ravens are black [true as at Hempel's time of writing]

2. All non-black things are non-ravens [also true by logical equivalence]

3. Therefore,the existence of my blue jacket and gray pants also confirm the statement 'All ravens are black.'



They are logically sound because the premises are valid.

So,the Paradox here is that the two statements or premises while valid,lead to a conclusion that seem at odds with their premise.


Similarly, I could say:

1. All Men are mortal.

2. AllNaijaBlogger is a man.

3. Therefore,AllNaijaBlogger is mortal.



Now if you believe in the bible,and take into account isolated events such as the stories of Enoch and Elijah,who by scriptural accounts did not die,then you could argue that the first premise is false. However,are those 2 events reason enough to invalidate that generalization despite the fact that hundreds of billions of men have died since? For us to even consider that,we would need more instances of that happening.Only then would we consider revisiting our premise.

Good.

Now that you have explained it like that, we are going somewhere.

By inductive reasoning alone, the raven argument is a paradox. Yes, I see your point because the conclusion logically follows if all ravens are black.


oh, and I am not a science student. Hated chemistry with a passion

AllNaijaBlogger:



Good.

Now that you have explained it like that, we are going somewhere.

By inductive reasoning alone, the raven argument is a paradox. Yes, I see your point because the conclusion logically follows if all ravens are black.


oh, and I am not a science student. Hated chemistry with a passion

For a non-science student,your logic is not bad...

AllNaijaBlogger and Sheikwonder, your arguments are paradoxical. Instead of learning from you, I'm left confused.

LarrySun:
AllNaijaBlogger and Sheikwonder, your arguments are paradoxical. Instead of learning from you, I'm left confused.

Please Sir,what part is confusing to you?

LarrySun:
AllNaijaBlogger and Sheikwonder, your arguments are paradoxical. Instead of learning from you, I'm left confused.

We are all learning

Sheikwonder:


Please Sir,what part is confusing to you?

I don't even know where to start from. But I admit that I'm enjoying every bit of it. You guys are so loaded that I feel like an illiterate.

LarrySun:
I don't even know where to start from. But I admit that I'm enjoying every bit of it. You guys are so loaded that I feel like an illiterate.

Haba,you are a master in your own right.

The aim of me creating this thread was to shed light on the concept itself, not to make it more confusing. That would defeat the purpose of the thread.

I first came across logical paradoxes 7 years ago. Of course then,I was as you are now,confused. But through discussions like these with colleagues[yorex2011],I got the hang of most of them,like I hope you will do.

Besides through this thread,I also learn stuff.For instance,I only just discovered that there exist white ravens,I learnt about the one about the mice and the villagers etc,all via this thread.

If you have any questions,any at all,feel free to ask.What I can answer,I will answer. What I can't,I may throw in the open or refer you to the web.


Do not ever feel like you know nothing,you know a lot.

Here is another one : FELA KUTI PARADOX
.
You know, Kuti means Die Not! In Yoruba language.
.
Now, as we all Know, The man (Kuti) is dead. The paradox here is that if Kuti is actually Kuti (die not!) then the death cannot kill him. but now Death is not death if it probably couldn't have killed him, as we all know Mr Kuti is dead. Now, what then killed Kuti? Maybe not dead, perhaps, probably in the middle of somewhere.
. Lols.
Pls. Mr Sheikwonder and Mr AllNaijaBlogger your attention is needed.

Cc: 1You

Strictly speaking,I do not consider your example a paradox,because it is an established fact that men are mortal i.e they are subject to death

It however counts for irony because a man who claimed that he couldn't die,eventually succumbed to death.


I hope that clears that.

^^^ Hope you aren't letting this thread die off?

Lol! I'm indeed confused about paradox. Allow me to explain my confusion in my own rather ridiculous way.

What is a Paradox? Let's take note of these definitions of Paradox:

Something (such as a situation) that is made up of two opposite things and that seems impossible but is actually true or possible: 

Someone who does two things that seem to be opposite to each other or who has qualities that are opposite: 

A statement that seems to say two opposite things but that may be true.

My confusion can be termed a paradox. I'm basically an arsonist and a fireman at the same time.

The purpose of the creation of this thread is to make people understand Paradox. But things have gone so complicated that I lost comprehension. Logically, paradox can be quite confusing; so it may not be wrong to assume that confusion is a basic part of the understanding of paradox. For you to really understand paradox, you have to be confused to a certain degree. Therefore, paradoxically, if you understand paradox, then you don't really understand it since you're not confused. But you understand it if you're confused. Technically, you have to not understand paradox to understand paradox, which is quite paradoxical.

If I say I don't understand Paradox, do I really understand it? I'm confused.

Aren't I the interviewer strapped to a polygraph?

LarrySun:
Lol! I'm indeed confused about paradox. Allow me to explain my confusion in my own rather ridiculous way.

What is a Paradox? Let's take note of these definitions of Paradox:

Something (such as a situation) that is made up of two opposite things and that seems impossible but is actually true or possible: 

Someone who does two things that seem to be opposite to each other or who has qualities that are opposite: 

A statement that seems to say two opposite things but that may be true.

My confusion can be termed a paradox. I'm basically an arsonist and a fireman at the same time.

The purpose of the creation of this thread is to make people understand Paradox. But things have gone so complicated that I lost comprehension. Logically, paradox can be quite confusing; so it may not be wrong to assume that confusion is a basic part of the understanding of paradox. For you to really understand paradox, you have to be confused to a certain degree. Therefore, paradoxically, if you understand paradox, then you don't really understand it since you're not confused. But you understand it if you're confused. Technically, you have to not understand paradox to understand paradox, which is quite paradoxical.

If I say I don't understand Paradox, do I really understand it? I'm confused.

Aren't I the interviewer strapped to a polygraph?

Now, that is a paradox for you!

Sorry everyone,had a busy week...

Mr. Feraz No,the thread is fun,why should I kill it off?

Mr. LarrySun,I like the way you think.

To be clear,the list of available paradoxes is inexhaustive,so while I may touch on some,they are many others out there which have not been discussed in depth,so that leaves us with a big task on our hands.

I encourage you guys to come up with as much as you can,while we analyse them.That said,to the issues my Larry raised....

Cc LarrySun

If I get you correctly,the summary of what you're saying is this:

-Paradoxes are confusing
-To understand a paradox,you have to be confused
-But if you are confused,how can you understand?

Nice!

The above shares similarities with a catch-22 paradox [discussed earlier].

When I was a much younger lad,I encountered the exception paradox,to wit:

-As a rule,there is an exception to every rule
-Since this is a rule,it also has an exception
-Therefore the exception to this rule is that there is no exception to this rule

But,if there is no exception to this rule,it goes against the prime rule that there is an exception to every rule,therefore even when there is no exception to a rule,it has an exception to it namely that there is an exception to that rule.

And so we go on and on ad infinitum, with no solution in sight.

Your paradox is quite interesting though & I appreciate your input.Try not to get confused often,You only live once....

Wow! Since I have been on NL this is the most informative n educative thread. Thanks op n everyone that contributed, really learnt alot.

And Larry the paradox confusion is something else, smile. Thumb up

Oluwason:
Wow! Since I have been on NL this is the most informative n educative thread. Thanks op n everyone that contributed, really learnt alot.

And Larry the paradox confusion is something else, smile. Thumb up

Thank you Sir,your comment is much appreciated.

Compliments of the season!

Sheikwonder:


Thank you Sir,your comment is much appreciated.

Compliments of the season!

Same to u Sir. I think I have one too going by the definition of paradox, there is this thought I have had concerning knowledge a long time now. Let me call it the paradox of knowledge.

'The more we study the more we know, the more we know the more we discover we dont know, and the more we discover we dont the more we crave to know, thus we study more to know'.

Which leads to a vicious circle, so technically speaking more study leads to more knowledge which leads to more ignnorance. Smiles.

Oluwason:


Same to u Sir. I think I have one too going by the definition of paradox, there is this thought I have had concerning knowledge a long time now. Let me call it the paradox of knowledge.

'The more we study the more we know, the more we know the more we discover we dont know, and the more we discover we dont the more we crave to know, thus we study more to know'.

Which leads to a viscious circle, so technically speaking more study leads to more knowledge which leads to more ignnorance. Smiles.

Beautiful!

We start dying the moment we are born. The life-giving air we breathe is a poison to our system.

When you get a virus, you get a fever. That's the human body raising its temperature to kill the virus. Planet Earth works the same way. Global warming is the the fever. Mankind is the virus. We're making our planet sick. A cull is our only hope. If we don't reduce our population ourselves, there is only one of two ways this can go. The host kills the virus, or the virus kills the host. Either way, the result is the same. The virus dies.

And still, what do the Scriptures say? We should be fruitful and multiply?

LarrySun:
We start dying the moment we are born. The life-giving air we breathe is a poison to our system.

When you get a virus, you get a fever. That's the human body raising its temperature to kill the virus. Planet Earth works the same way. Global warming is the the fever. Mankind is the virus. We're making our planet sick. A cull is our only hope. If we don't reduce our population ourselves, there is only one of two ways this can go. The host kills the virus, or the virus kills the host. Either way, the result is the same. The virus dies.

And still, what do the Scriptures say? We should be fruitful and multiply?

Hmm, u are right, but concerning the scripture I think the first sin by Adam was what change the course of the earth so it would not have affected our multiplicity and fruitfulness which now leads to doom.

LarrySun:
We start dying the moment we are born. The life-giving air we breathe is a poison to our system.

When you get a virus, you get a fever. That's the human body raising its temperature to kill the virus. Planet Earth works the same way. Global warming is the the fever. Mankind is the virus. We're making our planet sick. A cull is our only hope. If we don't reduce our population ourselves, there is only one of two ways this can go. The host kills the virus, or the virus kills the host. Either way, the result is the same. The virus dies.

And still, what do the Scriptures say? We should be fruitful and multiply?

This sounds so much like something I've heard before,presumably a sci-fi movie...

Oluwason:


Same to u Sir. I think I have one too going by the definition of paradox, there is this thought I have had concerning knowledge a long time now. Let me call it the paradox of knowledge.

'The more we study the more we know, the more we know the more we discover we dont know, and the more we discover we dont the more we crave to know, thus we study more to know'.

Which leads to a vicious circle, so technically speaking more study leads to more knowledge which leads to more ignnorance. Smiles.

Good one Sir.... seeing this,I am reminded of Socrates,when he was conferred as the wisest and most knowledgable man of his time. His reply?

"I know that I know nothing at all".

Sheikwonder:


Good one Sir.... seeing this,I am reminded of Socrates,when he was conferred as the wisest and most knowledgable man of his time. His reply?

"I know that I know nothing at all".

Damn Socrates.

The guy made statements that had deeper meanings.


"I know that I know nothing at all"


If you took that statement at face value, you'd think he was saying that he is dumb or he was just being humble. However, what he is truly saying is that there is so much knowledge in the world that it is too much for a single mind to comprehed.

Wise man, Socrates

Oluwason:


Same to u Sir. I think I have one too going by the definition of paradox, there is this thought I have had concerning knowledge a long time now. Let me call it the paradox of knowledge.

'The more we study the more we know, the more we know the more we discover we dont know, and the more we discover we dont the more we crave to know, thus we study more to know'.

Which leads to a vicious circle, so technically speaking more study leads to more knowledge which leads to more ignnorance. Smiles.

Awesome!

Sheikwonder:


This sounds so much like something I've heard before,presumably a sci-fi movie...

I watched an anime that resembles what he said - Parasyte!

Feraz:
I watched an anime that resembles what he said - Parasyte!

MIGI !!!!!

AllNaijaBlogger:

MIGI !!!!!

hehehe! An anime fan you are!

Feraz:
hehehe! An anime fan you are!

Yes....I think parasyte is the best anime that I have ever watched