Advanced search
1 file | 461.25 KB Add to list

Black ravens, white shoes and scientific evidence : the Ravens Paradox and/in scientific practice

Erik Weber (UGent) , Mathieu Beirlaen (UGent) and Inge De Bal (UGent)
(2020)
Author
Organization
Abstract
1BLACK RAVENS, WHITE SHOES AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.THE RAVENS PARADOX AND/IN SCIENTIFIC PRACTICEErik Weber, Mathieu Beirlaen&Inge De BalCentre for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceGhent University (UGent)Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Gent , BelgiumAbstractA well-known consequence of Hempel’s account of confirmation is the RavensParadox. In this paper we discuss this paradox from the viewpointof scientific practice. The main worry, when looking at this paradox from a scientific practiceperspective, is that it seems to lead to problematic methodological advice for scientists: it seems to licence ‘indoor ornithology’. We show that this problematic advice only follows from Hempel’s account if one adoptsa suboptimal viewof what counts as evidence for anhypothesis. We present and defend a more sophisticated viewof what counts as evidence, whichtakesrandom sampling–an important methodological principle in scientific practice–into account. On this sophisticated view, the problematic methodological advice connected tothe RavensParadox is avoided.
Keywords
Carl Hempel, confirmation, indoor ornithology, Ravens Paradox, positive evidence

Downloads

  • RavenParadoxScientificPractice-Report.pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 461.25 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Weber, Erik, et al. Black Ravens, White Shoes and Scientific Evidence : The Ravens Paradox and/in Scientific Practice. 2020.
APA
Weber, E., Beirlaen, M., & De Bal, I. (2020). Black ravens, white shoes and scientific evidence : the Ravens Paradox and/in scientific practice.
Chicago author-date
Weber, Erik, Mathieu Beirlaen, and Inge De Bal. 2020. “Black Ravens, White Shoes and Scientific Evidence : The Ravens Paradox and/in Scientific Practice.”
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Weber, Erik, Mathieu Beirlaen, and Inge De Bal. 2020. “Black Ravens, White Shoes and Scientific Evidence : The Ravens Paradox and/in Scientific Practice.”
Vancouver
1.
Weber E, Beirlaen M, De Bal I. Black ravens, white shoes and scientific evidence : the Ravens Paradox and/in scientific practice. 2020.
IEEE
[1]
E. Weber, M. Beirlaen, and I. De Bal, “Black ravens, white shoes and scientific evidence : the Ravens Paradox and/in scientific practice.” 2020.
@misc{8644425,
  abstract     = {{1BLACK RAVENS, WHITE SHOES AND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.THE RAVENS PARADOX AND/IN SCIENTIFIC PRACTICEErik Weber, Mathieu Beirlaen&Inge De BalCentre for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceGhent University (UGent)Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Gent , BelgiumAbstractA well-known consequence of Hempel’s account of confirmation is the RavensParadox. In this paper we discuss this paradox from the viewpointof scientific practice. The main worry,  when  looking  at this  paradox  from  a scientific  practiceperspective, is  that  it seems  to lead to  problematic  methodological  advice  for  scientists:  it  seems to  licence ‘indoor ornithology’. We  show  that  this problematic advice only follows from Hempel’s account  if one adoptsa suboptimal  viewof  what counts  as  evidence  for  anhypothesis. We  present and  defend a  more  sophisticated  viewof  what  counts  as evidence,  whichtakesrandom  sampling–an  important  methodological principle in  scientific  practice–into   account. On   this   sophisticated   view,   the   problematic   methodological   advice connected tothe RavensParadox is avoided.}},
  author       = {{Weber, Erik and Beirlaen, Mathieu and De Bal, Inge}},
  keywords     = {{Carl Hempel,confirmation,indoor ornithology,Ravens Paradox,positive evidence}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  pages        = {{9}},
  title        = {{Black ravens, white shoes and scientific evidence : the Ravens Paradox and/in scientific practice}},
  year         = {{2020}},
}