The logical equivalence (1) allows our hypothesis “All non-black things are non-raven” to be confirmed by simply looking at positive instances (2) such as a white shoe or any particular object in the world that is not black and not a raven. Absurdly, the equivalence condition (3) between the two hypotheses acknowledges that the white shoe or all non-black objects that are not a raven will evidently confirm the hypothesis that “All ravens are black.” Such conclusion appears to be paradoxical since it does not make intuitive sense to accept the observations of non-black non-raven objects as incremental evidence to confirm the hypothesis “all ravens are black” when such observations are not related nor did it ever observe black ravens. Moreover, the fact that the Nicod’s Criterion (2) only considers positive instances that increments evidence to confirm the hypothesis makes the conclusion even more absurd. There is no possibility that we can disconfirm the hypothesis since such disconfirming evidence is being
The logical equivalence (1) allows our hypothesis “All non-black things are non-raven” to be confirmed by simply looking at positive instances (2) such as a white shoe or any particular object in the world that is not black and not a raven. Absurdly, the equivalence condition (3) between the two hypotheses acknowledges that the white shoe or all non-black objects that are not a raven will evidently confirm the hypothesis that “All ravens are black.” Such conclusion appears to be paradoxical since it does not make intuitive sense to accept the observations of non-black non-raven objects as incremental evidence to confirm the hypothesis “all ravens are black” when such observations are not related nor did it ever observe black ravens. Moreover, the fact that the Nicod’s Criterion (2) only considers positive instances that increments evidence to confirm the hypothesis makes the conclusion even more absurd. There is no possibility that we can disconfirm the hypothesis since such disconfirming evidence is being