Hempel's Raven Paradox

Today I discussed a paradox with some friends. The paradox is known as Hempel's Ravens. It's a pretty fun paradox so I thought I'd try to walk you all through it. Here goes...

1) All ravens are black.

Now, from premise 1 we can infer by the law of implication:

2) Anything that is not black is not a raven.

Okay, so now that we have these two statements lets find how we would support them with evidence. Say you find a black raven. Since you saw a raven and it was black this would strengthen your first premise: all ravens are black.

However, what about the second statement? You would support premise 2 by finding something that isn't black and that isn't a raven. So, if I see something that isn't black or a raven(say a red apple), that red apple is evidence of #2. The problem is that premise 1 and 2 are equivalent statements. So, because of their equivalence, if I see a red apple that supports premise 2, premise 2 in turn supports its equivalent premise: premise 1. This means that when I see a red apple I find evidence that all ravens are black. This, of course, is counter intuitive. So, next time you see a red apple, take heart that that apple is evidence that all ravens are black.

If anyone wants to talk about ways of resolving this paradox let me know.