Against the Brogaard-Salerno Stricture

The Reasoner 10 (4):29-30 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
'It is widely agreed that contraposition, strengthening the antecedent and hypothetical syllogism fail for subjunctive conditionals', write Brogaard and Salerno in (2008: Counterfactuals and context, Analysis 68.1, 39–46). In that article they argue that the putative counterexamples to these principles are actually no threat, on the grounds that they involve a certain kind of illicit contextual shift. -/- Here I argue that this particular kind of contextual shift, if it is properly so called, is not generally illicit, and that therefore the counterexamples shouldn't be blocked with the kind of blanket restriction Brogaard and Salerno advocate. The idea that the reasoning patterns in question can be vindicated given restrictions still seems promising; the purpose of this note is to show that the simple restriction proposed by Brogaard and Salerno isn't the right way of going.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
HAZATB
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-03-06
View other versions
Added to PP index
2016-03-06

Total views
203 ( #28,398 of 2,439,471 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
10 ( #47,469 of 2,439,471 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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