ravens paradox
E334006
Ravens paradox is a famous problem in the philosophy of science that challenges our intuitions about confirmation and evidence by suggesting that observing non-black non-ravens can confirm the hypothesis that all ravens are black.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| paradox of the ravens | 1 |
| ravens paradox canonical | 1 |
| the paradox of the ravens | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T3166605 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: ravens paradox Context triple: [Carl Hempel, notableIdea, ravens paradox]
-
A.
Barber paradox
The Barber paradox is a self-referential logical puzzle about a barber who shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves, illustrating a contradiction similar to Russell’s paradox.
-
B.
Yablo's paradox
Yablo's paradox is a self-referential logical paradox involving an infinite sequence of sentences, each saying that all later sentences in the sequence are false, which challenges traditional notions of semantic paradox and self-reference.
-
C.
Curry paradox
Curry paradox is a self-referential logical paradox that arises in certain formal systems without using negation, showing how naive reasoning about implication and self-reference can lead to triviality.
-
D.
Russell’s paradox
Russell’s paradox is a foundational logical contradiction in naive set theory that reveals problems with sets that contain themselves, leading to major developments in modern logic and the axiomatization of set theory.
-
E.
Berry paradox
The Berry paradox is a self-referential logical paradox arising from phrases like “the smallest positive integer not definable in under eleven words,” which appears to define exactly such a number while claiming it cannot be defined.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: ravens paradox Target entity description: Ravens paradox is a famous problem in the philosophy of science that challenges our intuitions about confirmation and evidence by suggesting that observing non-black non-ravens can confirm the hypothesis that all ravens are black.
-
A.
Barber paradox
The Barber paradox is a self-referential logical puzzle about a barber who shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves, illustrating a contradiction similar to Russell’s paradox.
-
B.
Yablo's paradox
Yablo's paradox is a self-referential logical paradox involving an infinite sequence of sentences, each saying that all later sentences in the sequence are false, which challenges traditional notions of semantic paradox and self-reference.
-
C.
Curry paradox
Curry paradox is a self-referential logical paradox that arises in certain formal systems without using negation, showing how naive reasoning about implication and self-reference can lead to triviality.
-
D.
Russell’s paradox
Russell’s paradox is a foundational logical contradiction in naive set theory that reveals problems with sets that contain themselves, leading to major developments in modern logic and the axiomatization of set theory.
-
E.
Berry paradox
The Berry paradox is a self-referential logical paradox arising from phrases like “the smallest positive integer not definable in under eleven words,” which appears to define exactly such a number while claiming it cannot be defined.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
paradox of confirmation
ⓘ
philosophical paradox ⓘ problem in the philosophy of science ⓘ |
| addressesQuestion |
What kinds of observations confirm universal generalizations
ⓘ
Whether logically equivalent hypotheses must share confirming evidence ⓘ |
| basedOnPrinciple |
Equivalence condition for confirmation
ⓘ
If two hypotheses are logically equivalent, any evidence confirming one confirms the other ⓘ |
| concernsHypothesis | All ravens are black ⓘ |
| coreClaim | Observing a non-black non-raven confirms the hypothesis that all ravens are black ⓘ |
| field |
confirmation theory
ⓘ
epistemology ⓘ philosophy of science ⓘ |
| formulatedBy |
Carl Gustav Hempel
ⓘ
linked to:
Carl Hempel
|
| hasAlternativeName |
Hempel's paradox
ⓘ
Hempel's ravens paradox ⓘ paradox of the ravens ⓘ
linked to:
ravens paradox
|
| hasInfluenceOn |
Bayesian approaches to evidence
ⓘ
formal theories of confirmation ⓘ philosophical discussions of scientific reasoning ⓘ |
| hasStatus | classic puzzle in confirmation theory ⓘ |
| involvesConcept |
Bayesian confirmation theory
ⓘ
linked to:
Bayesian epistemology
Nicod's criterion ⓘ
linked to:
Hempel's paradox
background knowledge ⓘ evidence relevance ⓘ inductive logic ⓘ logical equivalence ⓘ observational confirmation ⓘ projectability of predicates ⓘ reference class ⓘ |
| involvesExample |
observation of a black raven
ⓘ
observation of a green apple ⓘ observation of a non-black non-raven ⓘ |
| logicallyEquivalentHypothesis | All non-black things are non-ravens ⓘ |
| mainTopic |
confirmation
ⓘ
evidence ⓘ hypothesis testing ⓘ inductive inference ⓘ |
| namedAfter | ravens ⓘ |
| raisesProblem |
How apparently irrelevant evidence can confirm a hypothesis
ⓘ
How to restrict what counts as confirming evidence ⓘ Tension between intuitive and formal accounts of confirmation ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
Bayesian epistemology
ⓘ
Goodman's new riddle of induction ⓘ
linked to:
new riddle of induction
hypothetico-deductive method ⓘ problem of induction ⓘ |
| timePeriod | 20th century ⓘ |
| typicalResponse |
Appeal to background knowledge and sampling procedures
ⓘ
Bayesian explanation of why non-black non-ravens provide extremely weak confirmation ⓘ |
| usesLogicalForm | All R are B ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: ravens paradox Description of subject: Ravens paradox is a famous problem in the philosophy of science that challenges our intuitions about confirmation and evidence by suggesting that observing non-black non-ravens can confirm the hypothesis that all ravens are black.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.