1. Give an example of a contrapositive instance that is generally considered in practice as confirming evidence of a hypothesis. Explain how that contrapositive instance is different from the contrapositive instance of the raven hypothesis.
(Instruction: Pls note that for Hempel, all contrapositive instances are confirming evidence, however, in practice it is not the case. Here you are asked to think of a contrapositive instance that is confirming evidence in an inductive inferential practice like detective investigation or scientific inquiry. Think of a new example of your own and pls note that the examples like vaccine and sodium salt hypotheses, and Newton’s first law that are discussed in the class or in the reading materials are to be avoided.) ( Maximum 200 words)
2. What are the problems with Hempel’s solution to the raven paradox?
(Instruction: Critically analyze Hempel’s solution and argue that the solution is problematic on one or two grounds even if you personally agree with Hempel’s solution. Pls note that the problems like excluding background information which is a necessary component of confirmation that are discussed in the class and are to be avoided. You have to think and come up with your own original critical analysis. There are several problems to Hempel’s solution that are discussed in the many philosophy of science articles. I would encourage you to read such articles and you can use the ideas that are discussed in the article by citing them, but at the end of the day, always try to make some original contribution to the assignment. Original contributions definitely get a better score. ( Maximum 400 words)
3. Is it possible to improve Hempel’s solution? If yes, characterize such possibilities. If not, what are the new other ways to tackle the paradox? Outline some new ways to resolve or dissolve the paradox ( 400 words)
(Instruction: If your answer to the question is yes, then you do not have to answer the second part starting with ‘ if not…’ and vice versa)