 The difference between Popper’s universal predicates and Goodman’s paradoxical ones may derive from the consideration that incorporating specific times into his definitions entails reference to specific moments of time \(t\), such as midnight tonight, during the history of the actual world, a point to which we are going to return. It follows that they cannot be “universal” in Popper’s sense and do not even qualify as “purely qualitative” in Hempel’s, either. Reliance upon material conditionals within first-order symbolic logic, moreover, forfeits the benefits of synthetic subjunctives. If the hypothesis, “All ravens are black”, is more adequately formalized as a subjunctive of the form, “\((x)(Rx \rightarrow Bx)\)”, where the truth of a subjunctive hypothetically assumes that its antecedent condition is satisfied, that obviates the paradox: white shoes are not ravens, and Nicod’s criteria apply Instances of “\(Rx\)” and “\(Bx\)” thereby confirm the hypothesis; instances of “\(Rx\)” and “\(\neg Bx\)” disconfirm it; and instances of “\(\neg Rx\)” are epistemically neutral, precisely as Nicod said.