Hempel's Raven Paradox

[Magical Realist]

A clear and concise explanation of this notorious paradox of philosophy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u2Ecyjp9g4

[C C]

What results from applying absolutes or non-mitigated qualifiers to concrete things that are part of contingent, everyday reality. In contrast to abstract components of some formal "game" and its eternally rigid rules and values (like mathematics).

For instance, "Ravens in this area are usually, but not necessarily always, black" rectifies the appearance of unconditional dogma.

Also, to restrict the classification requirements for "raven" to a narrow cognitive discriminator (like "If something is a raven, then it is black") is rubbing shoulders with the sorites paradox. By excluding other attributes such as body shape, behavior, etc -- such a standard for "raven" becomes too vague.

It's because of that descriptive restriction that "green apples" and other items exhaustingly get considered as evidence: "it follows that the sight of a green apple is evidence supporting the notion that all ravens are black".

One wouldn't bother referencing "green apples" if the attributes of a raven being elongated (not roundish), having feathers, etc, were included.

Imprecise categories are vulnerable to abuse or rogue liberties occurring at their entry gates.

[Ostronomos]

Thank you, I will take a look.