Are there a posteriori conceptual necessities?

Philosophical Studies 155 (2):181-197 (2011)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
I critically assess Stephen Yablo’s claim that cassinis are ovals is an a posteriori conceptual necessity. One does not know it simply by mastering the relevant concepts but by substantial empirical scrutiny. Yablo represents narrow content by would have turned out -conditionals. An epistemic reading of such conditionals does not bear Yablo’s claim. Two metaphysically laden readings are considered. In one reading, Yablo’s conditionals test under what circumstances concepts remain the same while their extensions diverge. As an alternative, I develop a more literal metaphysical interpretation: Yablo’s conditionals draw on scenarios which are qualitatively identical to some original situation. None of these interpretations sustains Yablo’s core thesis
PhilPapers/Archive ID
DOHATA
Upload history
Archival date: 2017-01-17
View other versions
Added to PP index
2010-05-22

Total views
287 ( #24,011 of 2,461,439 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #55,638 of 2,461,439 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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