In this paper, I will attempt to resolve the Ravens Problem and explain how to best
operate under its paradoxical conclusion that is derived from individually reasonable premises.
The Ravens Problem addresses how observational evidence can be used to support a hypothesis,
but the problem arises in attempting to qualitatively confirm the hypothesis, “All ravens are
black”. I will begin by introducing the Ravens Problem and explain the premises and conclusion.
Then, I will address why I think the Ravens Problem is unconvincing and provide a solution to
the argument. Finally, I will conclude with a counterargument to my claim and present a possible
response to it.
The Ravens Problem is a paradox that was first proposed by the logical positivist Carl G.
Hempel and goes as follows:
(P1) Any observation of an F that is also a G is evidence for the generalization “All F’s are G’s”.
(P2) Any observation that is evidence for a hypothesis H is also evidence for any hypothesis that
is logically equivalent to H.
(C) Therefore, an observation of a white shoe is evidence for the hypothesis “All ravens are
black”.
The first premise states that a hypothesis “All F’s are G’s,” is confirmed with an observation of
something that is F and also G. In Hempel’s original example, he began with the
hypothesis, “All ravens are black,” which is confirmed by the observation of a black
raven. In other words, the observation of a black raven serves as evidence to confirm the
hypothesis, “All ravens are black.” Moreover, each additional observation of a black
raven further confirms the generalization that, “All ravens are black.” By the same logic,
if you were to observe a cell phone and saw that it is rectangular, your observation serves
