A Contextualist Defence of the Material Account of Indicative Conditionals

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
The material account of indicative conditionals faces a legion of counterexamples that are the bread and butter in any entry about the subject. For this reason, the material account is widely unpopular among conditional experts. I will argue that this consensus was not built on solid foundations, since these counterexamples are contextual fallacies. They ignore a basic tenet of semantics according to which when evaluating arguments for validity we need to maintain the context constant, otherwise any argumentative form can be rendered invalid. If we maintain the context fixed, the counterexamples to the material account are disarmed. Throughout the paper I also consider the ramifications of this defence, make suggestions to prevent contextual fallacies, and anticipate some possible misunderstandings and objections.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2020-01-30
Latest version: 2 (2020-02-03)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals.David Kaplan - 1989 - In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press. pp. 481-563.
Elusive Knowledge.Lewis, David K.
Counterfactual Scorekeeping.Gillies, Anthony S.

View all 28 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
18 ( #49,284 of 50,097 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
18 ( #30,834 of 50,097 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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