This paper develops a formal theory of non-monotonic consequence which differs from most extant theories in that it assumes Contraposition as a basic principle of defeasible reasoning. We define a minimal logic that combines Contraposition with three uncontroversial inference rules, and we prove some key results that characterize this logic and its possible extensions.

This paper outlines an account of concessive conditionals that rests on two main ideas. One is that the logical form of a sentence as used in a given context is determined by the content expressed by the sentence in that context. The other is that a coherent distinction can be drawn between a reading of ‘if’ according to which a conditional is true when its consequent holds on the supposition that its antecedent holds, and a stronger reading according to which (...) a conditional is true when its antecedent supports its consequent. As we will suggest, the logical form of concessive conditionals can be elucidated by relying on this distinction. (shrink)

This paper investigates the relationships between two claims about conditionals that are often discussed separately. One is the claim that conditionals express inferences, in the sense that a conditional holds when its consequent can be inferred from its antecedent. The other is the claim that conditionals intuitively obey the characteristic principles of connexive logic. Following a line of thought that goes back to Chrysippus, we suggest that these two claims may coherently be understood as distinct manifestations of a single and (...) more basic idea, namely, that a conditional holds when its antecedent is incompatible with the negation of its consequent. The account of conditionals we propose is based precisely on this idea. (shrink)

The concept of an evidential conditional _If A then C_ that can be defined by the conjunction of \(A>C\) and \(\lnot C > \lnot A\), where > is a conditional of the kind introduced by Stalnaker and Lewis, has recently been studied in a series of papers by Vincenzo Crupi and Andrea Iacona. In this paper I argue that Crupi and Iacona’s central idea that contraposition captures the idea of evidential support cannot be maintained. I give examples showing that contraposition (...) is neither necessary nor sufficient for a conditional’s antecedent supporting its consequent. Crupi and Iacona’s alternative account of evidential conditionals that is based on a probabilistic measure of evidential support cannot add to the credentials of their modal account, because both the theoretical role of contraposition and the resulting logic are different in this account. (shrink)