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

I accept inductive reasoning. I just don’t accept inductive reasoning as it applies to what I would call evidence - you can reason from it, but if you’re reliant upon it as the base of your evidence, I don’t consider it evidence. That there is no such thing as “relative evidence” in the way you’re talking about - if the base isn’t held up by full evidence itself, then nothing building on that can be evidence, to me.

I certainly have no problems accepting consistency in those terms. We need to in order to do pretty much anything, really. But science and evidence are and should be held to a different standard than “Well, let’s just act as if it’s so”. It needs to be shown to be so, and I personally would not call anything that relies on that for which there is no full evidence of it being shown as evidence. In my eyes, you can’t just talk about relative evidence; it’s like saying full emptiness, if it’s full, it’s not empty.