A Counterexample to Modus Ponenses

Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
McGee (1985) argued that modus ponens was invalid for the natural language conditional ‘If. . . then. . . ’. Many subsequent responses have argued that, while McGee’s examples show that modus ponens fails to preserve truth, they do not show that modus ponens fails to preserve rational full acceptance, and thus modus ponens may still be valid in the latter informational sense. I show that when we turn our attention from indicative conditionals (the focus of most of the literature to date) to subjunctive conditionals, we find that modus ponens does not preserve either truth or rational full acceptance, and thus is not valid in either sense. In concluding I briefly consider how we can account for these facts.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2020-01-26
Latest version: 2 (2020-03-11)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Epistemic Modals.Seth Yalcin - 2007 - Mind 116 (464):983-1026.
A Theory of Conditionals.Stalnaker, Robert C.
If P, Then P!Mandelkern, Matthew

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
123 ( #29,969 of 50,405 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
123 ( #3,738 of 50,405 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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