Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-sq2k7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-11T17:17:44.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COUNTERFACTUALS AND PROPOSITIONAL CONTINGENTISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2017

PETER FRITZ  and
JEREMY GOODMAN
PETER FRITZ*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas, University of Oslo
JEREMY GOODMAN*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Southern California
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, CLASSICS, HISTORY OF ART AND IDEAS UNIVERSITY OF OSLO POSTBOKS 1020 BLINDERN 0315 OSLO, NORWAY E-mail: peter.fritz@ifikk.uio.no
† DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 3709 TROUSDALE PARKWAY LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, USA 90089 E-mail: jeremy.goodman@usc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores the connection between two theses: the principle of conditional excluded middle for the counterfactual conditional, and the claim that it is a contingent matter which (coarse grained) propositions there are. Both theses enjoy wide support, and have been defended at length by Robert Stalnaker. We will argue that, given plausible background assumptions, these two principles are incompatible, provided that conditional excluded middle is understood in a certain modalized way. We then show that some (although not all) arguments for conditional excluded middle can in fact be extended to motivate this modalized version of the principle.

Keywords

03B45counterfactualsconditional excluded middlecontingentismmodal logic

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 509 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2017 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bacon, A. Conditional logics accommodating Stalnaker’s thesis. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (1977a). Postscript to Worlds, Times and Selves (with A. N. Prior). London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (1977b). Properties, propositions and sets. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 6(1), 135–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, P. (2016). Propositional contingentism. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 9(1), 123–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, P. (2017). Logics for propositional contingentism. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 10(2), 203–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, P. (forthcoming). Higher-order contingentism, part 2: Patterns of indistinguishability. Journal of Philosophical Logic.Google Scholar
Fritz, P. & Goodman, J. (2016). Higher-order contingentism, part 1: Closure and generation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45(6), 645–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, P. & Goodman, J. (forthcoming). Counting incompossibles. Mind.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. & Harper, W. (1981 [1978]). Counterfactuals and two kinds of expected utility. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., and Pearce, G., editors. Ifs: Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance, and Time. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 153–190.Google Scholar
Goodman, J. Consequences of conditional excluded middle. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Herzberger, H. G. (1979). Counterfactuals and consistency. The Journal of Philosophy, 76(2), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1986). Linguistic theory and Davidson’s program in semantics. In Lepore, E., editor. Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 29–48.Google Scholar
Huitink, J. (2010). Quantified conditionals and compositionality. Philosophy Compass, 4(1), 42–53.Google Scholar
Klinedinst, N. (2011). Quantified conditionals and conditional excluded middle. Journal of Semantics, 28(1), 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A. (forthcoming). Chasing hook. In Walters, L. and Hawthorne, J., editors. Conditionals, Probability, and Paradox: Themes from the Philosophy of Dorothy Edgington. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leslie, S.-J. (2008). “If”, “unless”, and quantification. In Stainton, R. and Viger, C., editors. Compositionality, Context, and Semantic Values. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13(4), 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, S. (2013). Subjunctive credence and semantic humility. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 87(2), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B. (1981 [1980]). The prior propensity account of subjunctive conditionals. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., and Pearce, G., editors. Ifs: Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance, and Time. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 259–265.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In Rescher, N., editor. Studies in Logical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 98–112.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1981). A defense of conditional excluded middle. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., and Pearce, G., editors. Ifs: Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance, and Time. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 87–104.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1981 [1972]). Letter to David Lewis. In Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., and Pearce, G., editors. Ifs: Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance, and Time. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 151–152.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (2012). Mere Possibilities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Swanson, E. (2008). Conditional excluded middle without the limit assumption. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85(2), 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, K. & Iatridou, S. (2002). If and when ‘if’-clauses can restrict (online PDF available at: web.mit.edu/fintel/fintel-iatridou-2002-ifwhen.pdf).Google Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2010). Defending conditional excluded middle. Noûs, 44(4), 650–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2012). Counterfactual triviality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85(3), 648–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. (2013). Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar