How Strong is a Counterfactual?

Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
There are two leading theories about the meaning of counterfactuals, the Variably Strict Analysis (VSA) and the Strict Analysis (SA). Perhaps most famously, VSA and SA disagree about a principle known as Antecedent Strengtheing: SA validates the principle; VSA does not. Early VSA theorists believed that certain apparent counterexamples to Antecedent Strengthening— now known as Sobel Sequences—refuted SA. More recently, defenders of SA have enriched SA with certain dynamic principles governing how context evolves and argued that Sobel sequences are not counterexamples to the resulting Dynamic SA. But Antecedent Strengthening is just one of a family of strengthening principles. In this paper, we focus on a weaker principle, which we call Strengthening with a Possibility, and give a counterexample to it. We show that the dynamic features attributed to would-counterfactuals and might-counterfactuals by proponents Dynamic SA are of no help when it comes to counterexamples to Strengthening with a Possibility, unlike counterexamples to Antecedent Strengthening itself. We develop a new version of VSA that incorporates a Kratzerian ordering source into the meaning of counterfactuals, and we show how to model counterexamples to Strengthening with a Possibility on our account.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-10-16
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
77 ( #36,948 of 50,123 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
21 ( #27,993 of 50,123 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.