TITLE: What's your explanation of the Raven Paradox?
QUESTION [21 upvotes]: The Raven Paradox starts with the following statement
(1) All ravens are black.
which is equivalent to the following statement
(2) Everything that is not black is not a raven.
In all the circumstances where statement (2) is true, (1) is also true. And, if (2) is false, i.e., if we find an evidence against it, then (1) will also be false.
Now, whenever we see a Black Raven, we see an evidence which supports the statement 'All Ravens are Black'. So, if we see more and more black Raven, then our belief gets stronger and stronger that all Ravens are black.
But since the statements (1) and (2) are equivalent, so collecting evidence supporting statement (2) is also an evidence that all Ravens are black. So, if we see , for example, a red apple, then it's an evidence supporting that 'All Ravens are Black'. It's because 'A red apple' is neither black (because it is red) nor is it a Raven (because it's an Apple. Apples can't be Ravens, can they?).
This conclusion seems paradoxical, because it implies that information has been gained about ravens by looking at an apple. Also, the evidence is completely unrelated. I attempted to explain it but I'm not completely convinced by my explanation.
How can we resolve this paradox?

EDIT: It can be used to collect evidence supporting completely false statements like: 'All dinosaurs are educated'. Because we've seen plenty of things until now which are neither educated nor they're dinosaurs.
EDIT2: I think that the paradox still remains. If we have a journey and took a look at every non-black thing in the universe and found it to be non-Raven, then from this argument it should be proved that all Ravens are black. But that's paradoxical because it would mean false statements can also be proved by taking a look at everything else.

REPLY [6 votes]: Here an answer a bit different. It is an "extreme" case, but it may convince you that finding something that is not a raven and it isn't black is evidence that all ravens are black:
Let's say there are only 7 things in the world. 4 of them are ravens, and 3 of them are not ravens. 2 of the non-ravens are also not black. 
If you want to prove that all ravens are black you could check all of the 4 ravens, so each raven is 1/4 of the total evidence you need. Or you could also check if the 2 non-black things are not ravens, so each of the two things would be 1/2 of the total evidence you need. So checking that a non-black thing is not a raven is a stronger evidence than checking that a raven is black! After you have checked that all the non-black things are not ravens, you know that no raven will be able to be non-black anymore. So the ravens will be black.
This is not paradoxical and doesn't let you prove false things. If you want to prove that all dinosaurs are educate and you are able to prove that all the non-educate things are not dinosaur, then no non-educate thing will be left to be a dinosaur anymore! And so all the dinosaur are educate. But of course if some dinosaurs are not educate you will not be able to prove that all non-educate things are not dinosaurs.
Maybe the above sentences were a bit difficult to parse, so here some Venn diagrams to look at while reading: 

These simple set theory considerations, together with the arguments about probability that other answers gave should give you a pretty clear overall picture.