ABSTRACT
One response, that of Carl Hempel who devised the paradox (first published in Mind in 1945), is to insist that a white pen does confirm (R) in that it gives it some support: ‘confirmation’, as the term is used in confirmation theory, is not understood in terms of conclusive, or even strong, evidence, it is merely a matter of support. The trouble is, it seems, that a white pen should confirm (R-) to the same extent as it confirms (R), and at first sight it does not. But consider how best to find support for (R-). Looking at things which are not black will not get you very far, since they are so numerous and varied. Compare ‘Nothing which doesn’t have two legs is a man’. You could look at thousands of things without two legs without coming across a one-legged man, despite the fact that there are men with one leg. The best way to confirm (R-) would
be to look for ravens and see what colour they were, since there are far fewer ravens than non-ravens.
