The Raven Paradox was first put forth in the 1940's by German philosopher, Carl Gustav Hempel, which is why it also called Hempel's paradox.
Hempel was thinking of ways to prove hypotheses when he came up with the paradox.
Consider the hypothesis "All ravens are black". What would be considered supporting evidence for this statement? Well, seeing a black raven would. And so every time you see a black raven, your belief in the hypothesis would increase.
An equivalent statement to "All ravens are black" is that "Anything that isn't black can't be a raven". So, if you were to see a purple bird, then you would immediately know that the purple bird can't be a raven.
However, this rule can present problems. Imagine that you find a red apple. The apple is indeed not black and not a raven. It then provides supporting evidence for the hypothesis "Anything that isn't black can't be a raven". But does it provide evidence that "All ravens are black?" Not necessarily.
Here in lies the problem. Even though the first statement and the second statement, "All ravens are black" and "Anything non-black can't be a raven", are equivalent, the same evidence can't be used to prove them.
And so, if you follow Hempel's logic A=B and B=C, then A=C. Which is at least to some extent true as there is a significantly higher number of black ravens than non-black ravens.
However, we know that this isn't always the case.
There is an alternative method to proving hypothesis: Bayesian interference. This method weights evidence to a hypothesis by their relevance.. In this way, finding a red apple would not contribute to proving the hypothesis that "All ravens are black" as much as seeing a black raven would.
Using this method, we can identify that non-black non-ravens are suitable in supporting the hypothesis but are not as good as black ravens are. This is because a black raven creates more certainty in your hypothesis that "All ravens are black".
So, what can we learn from this?
The Raven Paradox has more uses that just being applied to how conclusions can be made from scientific data, it can also be applied to how we think critically about irrational trains of thought in our own lives.
For instance, if you are having self-doubtful thoughts such as "I am bad at X" then in the limited environment of other people who also do X, you can form the statement that "if someone is me, they are bad at X". Seems logical so far. Following The Raven Paradox, we can form a third statement, "if someone isn't me, then they are not bad at X".
Here is where a fault arises. Of course, being good or bad at X is more subjective than the colour of a raven, but regardless, just because someone isn't you, that doesn't mean that their abilities in X are better than yours. If we apply The Raven Paradox into self deprecating thoughts, it is assumed that you are the worst possible person at X.
Technically, this is possible, but nearly any action of X is far too subjective to determine the best and worst person at it due to people's differing opinions.
Likewise, this can be applied to egoistical thoughts too. If you believe you are good at X, that doesn't make someone who isn't you not good at X for the exact same reasons as mentioned previously.
The Raven Paradox encourages us to think positively about abilities that we are not confident in and humbles us about abilities we think we excel in.
The Raven Paradox reassures us that our abilities in X are not as terrible as we think they are and that instead we are being too unkind to ourselves. Simultaneously, if we are confident in our abilities in X, it teaches to remember that there is still much to learn and ways to improve.
How can we apply this in our lives?
Philosophy is an inescapable part of our lives, It undeniably impacts how we overcome challenges, how we perceive others, how we treat ourselves as well as countless other things. And so, we might as well be conscious of how our thinking impacts us and use it to our advantage.
The next time you feel insecure about your abilities in X or even materialistic things such as how you look, the place you live, the things you have, remember to be grateful for it because there are people that have it worse. Granted, there are also many people that have it better, but even they might struggle with other factors that you may take for granted such as good relationships, emotional stability, good coping mechanisms etcetera.
There is absolutely no issue with feeling confident in something and it is a positive feature to know your strengths. But if you catch yourself feeling particularly egocentric or conceited, remind yourself that you most likely aren't perfect from it and even in the *extremely* rare situation that you are, there is still always more to learn and more room to grow.