Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-g628x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T00:42:29.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AN ARGUMENT FOR CONJUNCTION CONDITIONALIZATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2013

LEE WALTERS  and
J. ROBERT G. WILLIAMS
LEE WALTERS*
Affiliation:
Somerville College, Oxford
J. ROBERT G. WILLIAMS*
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
*
*SOMERVILLE COLLEGE OXFORD, OX2 6HD, UK E-mail: lee.walters@philosophy.ox.ac.uk
†DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS WOODHOUSE LANE, LEEDS LS2 9JT, UK E-mail: j.r.g.williams@leeds.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Are counterfactuals with true antecedents and consequents automatically true? That is, is Conjunction Conditionalization: (X ∧ Y) ⊃ (X > Y) valid? Stalnaker and Lewis think so, but many others disagree. We note here that the extant arguments for Conjunction Conditionalization are unpersuasive, before presenting a family of more compelling arguments. These arguments rely on some standard theorems of the logic of counterfactuals as well as a plausible and popular semantic claim about certain semifactuals. Denying Conjunction Conditionalization, then, requires rejecting other aspects of the standard logic of counterfactuals or else our intuitive picture of semifactuals.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 573 - 588
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, E. (1975). The Logic of Conditionals. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, A. (2011). Walters on conjunction conditionalization. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, CXI, 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. (1974). Counterfactuals and possible worlds. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 4, 381–402.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. (2001). On forward and backward counterfactual conditionals. In Preyer, G., and Siebelt, F., editors. Reality and Humean Supervenience. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 177–202.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. (2003). A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bigelow, J. (1976). If-then meets the possible worlds. Philosophia, 6, 215–236.Google Scholar
Burgess, J. (1981). Quick completeness proofs for some logics of conditionals. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 22, 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, D. (1983). An incompatible pair of subjunctive conditional modal axioms. Philosophical Studies, 44, 71–110.Google Scholar
Cogburn, J., & Roland, J. W. (2013). Safety and the true-true problem. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 94, 246–267.Google Scholar
Cross, C. (2009). Conditional excluded middle. Erkenntnis, 70, 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgington, D. (2004). Counterfactuals and the benefit of hindsight. In Dowe, P., and Noordhof, P., editors. Cause and Chance: Causation in an Indeterministic World. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 12–27.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (1975). Critical notice of David Lewis’s counterfactuals. Mind, 84, 451–458. Reprinted in his Modality and Tense (2005). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1978). Conditionals and changes of belief. Acta Philosophica Fennica,30, 381–404.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in Flux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gundersen, L. (2004). Outline of a new semantics for counterfactuals. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 85, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiddleston, E. (2005). A causal theory of counterfactuals. Nous, 39, 632–657.Google Scholar
Kvart, I. (1986). A Theory of Counterfactuals. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Kvart, I. (1994) Counterfactuals: Ambiguities, true premises and knowledge. Synthese, 100, 133–164.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1971). Completeness and decidability of three logics of counterfactual conditionals. Theoria, 37, 74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Nous, 13, 455–476. Reprinted with postscripts in his Philosophical Papers: Volume II. (1986). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1981). Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10, 217–234. Reprinted in his Papers in Philosophical Logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986). Counterfactuals, revised edn. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Loewer, B. (1979). Cotenability and counterfactual logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 99–115.Google Scholar
McDermott, M. (1999). Counterfactuals and access points. Mind, 108, 291–334.Google Scholar
McDermott, M. (2007). True antecedents. Acta Analytica, 22, 333–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, V. (1985). A counterexample to Modus Ponens. Journal of Philosophy, 82,462–471.Google Scholar
McGlynn, A. (2012). The problem of true-true counterfactuals. Analysis, 72, 276–285.Google Scholar
McKay, T., & van Inwagen, P. (1977). Counterfactuals with disjunctive antecedents. Philosophical Studies, 31, 353–356.Google Scholar
Morreau, M. (2009). The hypothetical syllogism. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38,447–464.Google Scholar
Noordhof, P. (2004). Prospects for a counterfactual theory of causation. In Dowe, P., and Noordhof, P., editors. Cause and Chance: Causation in an Indeterministic World. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 188–201.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nute, D. (1980). Topics in Conditional Logic. Boston, MA: Reidel.Google Scholar
Penczek, A. (1997). Counterfactuals with true components. Erkenntnis, 46, 79–85.Google Scholar
Phillips, I. (2007). Morgenbesser cases and closet determinism. Analysis, 67, 42–49.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. (1976). Subjunctive Reasoning. Boston, MA: Reidel.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. (1981). A refined theory of counterfactuals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 10, 239–266.Google Scholar
Pruss, A. (2007). Conjunctions, disjunctions and Lewisean semantics for counterfactuals. Synthese, 96, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2004). Counterfactuals, causal dependence and conceptual circularity. Analysis, 54, 299–309.Google Scholar
Slote, M. (1978). Time in counterfactuals. Philosophical Review, 87, 3–27.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In Rescher, N., editor. Studies in Logical Theory. American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series, No. 2. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 98–112.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1987) Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tichý, P. (1978). A new theory of subjunctive conditionals. Synthese, 37, 433–457.Google Scholar
Tooley, M. (2002). Backward causation and the Stalnaker–Lewis approach to counterfactuals. Analysis, 62, 191–197.Google Scholar
Walters, L. (2009). Morgenbesser’s coin and counterfactuals with true components. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, CIX, 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, L. (2011). Reply to Ahmed. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, CXI, 123–133.Google Scholar
Walters, L.(MS) Possible Worlds Semantics and True–True Counterfactuals. Available from: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~some3090/papers/Possible%20Worlds%20Semantics%20and%20True-True%20Counterfactuals.pdfGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2010). Defending conditional excluded middle. Noûs, 44, 650–668.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2007). The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Won, C. (2009). Morgenbesser’s coin, counterfactuals, and causal versus probabilistic independence. Erkenntnis, 71, 345–354.Google Scholar