The Raven Paradox

What if there was an ornithologist, which is a scientist who studies birds, who wanted to determine whether or not all ravens were black. The easiest and most reasonable thing for him to do would be to go outside and look for a raven that wasn’t black. Smart, right?
On the contrary, if he went outside and sees tons of ravens and every one of them was black, his theory would be supported, but never proven. However, each new black raven that he found would add a little more evidence that all ravens were black.
But now suppose that he was lazy. Instead of looking for ravens, he decided upon using another method that he devised.
Because the statement “all ravens are black” is logically equivalent to the statement “all nonblack objects are nonravens”, he decided to look for nonblack nonravens to prove his point. Now he didn’t even have to search in the woods to find evidence, which included brown chairs, orange oranges, or anything else that wasn’t black or a raven.
But how is it possible that searching for orange oranges would contribute to the hypothesis that all ravens are black? In reality, it wouldn’t be a very bright idea to confirm a hypothesis on the number of nonblack nonravens that one could find. In theory, however, it’s possible. The evidence that finding a brown chair would provide may be infinitesimal, but it would still provide an example of an object that wasn’t a nonblack raven. What’s more is that finding most nonblack nonravens would provide examples of nonwhite nonravens. How would it be possible for one fact to support two contradictory claims?
This is now known as the Hempel’s Ravens Paradox and it was devised by Carl Hempel in 1946.

Like They Do On The Discovery Channel

"I don't blog. I don't like to blog. So why am I blogging?" -From the mastery of Aleksis Rae.

We all like to feel special. We all enjoy a little self-value. Consequentially, when asked if we are the dominant race in our little world we'd almost certainly reply "Of course!". However, when asked why we always hesitate and stutter.
For example, there was a time when my scientific dad and his religious ladyfriend were watching a show about monkeys. It was then that she was asked if she believed in the Darwin theory. Her response?
"Of course not. We're nothing like monkeys."
"But genetically, we're nearly the same."
"Well.. They can't speak."

With all due respect for Miss Alice, I think this portrays the ignorance of humankind. And the possible ignorance of other animals, too. You heard me.
You and me baby are nothin' but mammals.

But, but, We're special in some ways! Right, Miss Alice? Right-o.
For example, we're the only species that can create and enjoy art. That's what they say. Well, that's a meager accomplishment, seeing that art has no benefits outside of human enjoyment.
Bolder claims say that we're the only ones who are aware of our existence, which can't be proven.
We're the only ones who can alter out environment, explore the realms of space, the list goes on. All in an attempt to separate ourselves for the others, to be better than the rest of the world's little creepy crawly things.
Well, an ant can lift a thousand times it's own weight. We can't do that. In fact, almost every creature can do something that the others can't. And I'm sure that they understand that they're the dominant species as well.

Thanks, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, for the insight. And remember: To the dog, he isn't the pet. You are.