Raven’s paradox also known as Hempel’s raven or Hempel’s paradox is an elaboration of how inductive logic contradicts intuition. The paradox reveals serious problems associated with their theory of induction which makes a conclusion on mere predetermined generalizations. Hempel proposed that all propositions should be set against a logically equivalent condition when coming up with a workable hypothesis to be tested by an inductive logic. However, the critics rule out the possibility of coming up with a logically equivalent proposition through an inductive logic. Majority tends to test propositions whose outcomes would definitely be in support of existing knowledge or what they intuitively know as true.
Goodman’s new Riddle of Introduction
Goodman’s new Riddle of introduction is an example of induction where illustrating that all Emerald examined are all green. Using the principle of inductive reasoning, the statement implies that all Emerald will be green in the future. Suppose other emeralds of a different color lets say grue surfaces, they will be regarded as an outlier but not evidence. Induction will be set to confirm that all emeralds are green but not grue. This is an outright bias in the proposition. Inductive propositions are set to confirm the reality lying within the ranges of the curve fitting problem. Anything that falls short of the proposition or hypothesis will be eliminated deliberately. Several attempts have been to rectify this kind of an imminent lapse in the proposition of the inductive reasoning and testing. One of the solutions is to set two testing hypotheses with the equal chances of happening before reaching a conclusion.
Karl Popper’s Problems with Inductive Reasoning
Karl Popper observes that there are several problems with the procedures and methods philosophers use to confirm validity or truth in scientific hypotheses in the physical universe through their sensory observations. The most conspicuous of all is the use of predetermined of mathematical formulas and scientific language of a highly limited scope in the understanding of complex world around them. The resultant empirical generalizations could not therefore support themselves independent of other theories. To overcome this limitation of the scientific approach to knowledge, Popper proposes that scientific hypothesis should be designed to tests their own falsifiability rather than subjective verification.