Seems not really paradoxical to me, both formulations just suggest different ways about acquiring evidence. The original formulation suggest to first pick a rav

Seems not really paradoxical to me, both formulations just suggest different ways about acquiring evidence. The original formulation suggest to first pick a raven from the set of all things and then verify that it is indeed black, the inverted formulation suggest to first pick a non-black thing from the set of all things and then verify that it is indeed not a raven. Both ways work and provide evidence for the truth of the hypothesis. If there are non-black ravens and the hypothesis is therefore wrong you can find that out by first picking a raven and then realizing that it is non-black as well as first picking a non-black thing and then realizing that it is a raven. In our world the set of ravens and the set of non-black things vastly differ in size and therefore the first way of doing it seems more intuitive but if you for example think about sets of twenty triangles and squares colored either black or white the paradox immediately disappears.