Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-w5vf4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-26T10:51:03.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resolving the Raven Paradox: Simple Random Sampling, Stratified Random Sampling, and Inference to Best Explanation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2022

Barry Ward
Barry Ward*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, US Email: bmward@uark.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Simple random-sampling resolutions of the raven paradox relevantly diverge from scientific practice. We develop a stratified random-sampling model, yielding a better fit and apparently rehabilitating simple random sampling as a legitimate idealization. However, neither accommodates a second concern, the objection from potential bias. We develop a third model that crucially invokes causal considerations, yielding a novel resolution that handles both concerns. This approach resembles Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) and relates the generalization’s confirmation to confirmation of an associated law. We give it an objective Bayesian formalization and discuss the compatibility of Bayesianism and IBE.

Information

Type
Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 89 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 360 - 377
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Douven, Igor. 2013. “Inference to the Best Explanation, Dutch Books, and Inaccuracy Minimisation.” Philosophical Quarterly 63:428–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, Branden. 1999. “The Plurality of Bayesian Measures of Confirmation and the Problem of Measure Sensitivity.” Philosophy of Science 66 (Proceedings):S362–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitelson, Branden, and Hawthorne, James. 2010. “How Bayesian Confirmation Theory Handles the Paradox of the Ravens.” In Probability in Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol. 284, ed. Eells, Ellery and Fetzer, James, 247–77. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Gaifman, Haim. 1979. “Subjective Probability, Natural Predicates and Hempel’s Ravens.” Erkenntnis 14:105–47.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1945. “Studies in the Logic of Confirmation (I).” Mind 54:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, Paul. 1982. Probability and Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hosiasson-Lindenbaum, Janina. 1940. “On Confirmation.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 5:133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipton, Peter. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Londono, Gustavo A., Garcia, Duvan A., and Martinez, Manuel A.S.. 2015. “Morphological and Behavioral Evidence of Batesian Mimicry in Nestlings of a Lowland Amazonian Bird.” The American Naturalist 185:135–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mill, John S. 1868. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive Vol. I (7th Edition). London: Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
Roche, William, and Sober, Elliott. 2013. “Explanatoriness Is Evidentially Irrelevant, or Inference to the Best Explanation Meets Bayesian Confirmation Theory.” Analysis 73:659–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinard, Susanna. 2014. “A New Bayesian Solution to the Paradox of the Ravens.” Philosophy of Science 81:81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, Israel. 1963. The Anatomy of Inquiry: Philosophical Studies in the Theory of Science. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Stove, David. 1966. “Hempel’s Paradox.” Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review 4:444–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, Alan. 1962. Basic Ideas of Scientific Sampling. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
Suppes, Patrick. 1966. “A Bayesian Approach to the Paradoxes of Confirmation.” In Aspects of Inductive Logic ed. Hintikka, Jaakko and Suppes, Patrick, 198–207. Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 1978. “The Best Explanation: Criteria for Theory Choice.” The Journal of Philosophy 75:76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas C. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vranas, Peter B.M. 2004. “Hempel’s Raven Paradox: A Lacuna in the Standard Bayesian Solution.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55:545–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Jonathan. 2009. “Locating IBE in the Bayesian Framework.” Synthese 167:125–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar