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
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-01-17
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2010-05-22

Total downloads
162 ( #15,492 of 37,191 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #18,480 of 37,191 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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