The Raven Paradox - Can anyone explain this in layman's terms?

Sort of. I think that’s definetly the point of contention - but while certainly I can recognise that discussion of “evidence” being relative to those assumptions being accepted, I personally don’t think that observations or the like which are based on prior assumptions which don’t have full (by which I mean fulfilling all of the premise) evidence to be evidence in turn.

In other words, I think you’re saying that should we assume the premise is correct, evidence from it is evidence. I’m saying that it doesn’t matter whether we assume the premise is correct or not (as far as calling something evidence goes); if there isn’t in turn full evidence to back up the premise, anything we might bring to back up a conclusion is not evidence itself. For me it seems like saying “Here’s something that backs up this particular answer, only we don’t know what the question is”.