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
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-03-06
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Counterfactuals and Context.Brogaard, Berit & Salerno, Joe

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2016-03-06

Total views
109 ( #23,552 of 40,765 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
14 ( #30,107 of 40,765 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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