Strict conditional accounts of counterfactuals

Linguistics and Philosophy 40 (6):621-645 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
von Fintel and Gillies : 329–360, 2007) have proposed a dynamic strict conditional account of counterfactuals as an alternative to the standard variably strict account due to Stalnaker and Lewis. Von Fintel’s view is motivated largely by so-called reverse Sobel sequences, about which the standard view seems to make the wrong predictions. More recently Moss :561–586, 2012) has offered a pragmatic/epistemic explanation that purports to explain the data without requiring abandonment of the standard view. So far the small amount of subsequent literature has focused primarily on the original class of cases motivating the strict conditional view. What is needed in the debate is an examination of the predictions of the dynamic strict conditional account for a broader range of data. I undertake this task here, presenting a slew of cases that are problematic for the strict conditional view but not for Moss’s view, and considering some possible responses. Ultimately I take my contribution to constitute a significant blow to the dynamic strict conditional view, though not a decisive verdict against it.
No keywords specified (fix it)
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-07-18
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
A Theory of Conditionals.Stalnaker, Robert C.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
131 ( #28,844 of 50,263 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #37,785 of 50,263 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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