On the Substitution of Identicals in Counterfactual Reasoning

Noûs:1-32 (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
It is widely held that counterfactuals, unlike attitude ascriptions, preserve the referential transparency of their constituents, i.e., that counterfactuals validate the substitution of identicals when their constituents do. The only putative counterexamples in the literature come from counterpossibles, i.e., counterfactuals with impossible antecedents. Advocates of counterpossibilism, i.e., the view that counterpossibles are not all vacuous, argue that counterpossibles can generate referential opacity. But in order to explain why most substitution inferences into counterfactuals seem valid, counterpossibilists also often maintain that counterfactuals with possible antecedents are transparency‐preserving. I argue that if counterpossibles can generate opacity, then so can ordinary counterfactuals with possible antecedents. Utilizing an analogy between counterfactuals and attitude ascriptions, I provide a counterpossibilist‐friendly explanation for the apparent validity of substitution inferences into counterfactuals. I conclude by suggesting that the debate over counterpossibles is closely tied to questions concerning the extent to which counterfactuals are more like attitude ascriptions and epistemic operators than previously recognized.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2019-02-08
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Counterfactuals.Lewis, David K.
Ifs and Oughts.Kolodny, Niko & MacFarlane, John

View all 50 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Classical Opacity.Caie, Michael; Goodman, Jeremy & Lederman, Harvey

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
635 ( #5,690 of 48,949 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
231 ( #1,746 of 48,949 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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