A Contextualist Defence of the Material Account of Indicative Conditionals

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
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
SILACD-11
Upload history
First archival date: 2020-01-30
Latest version: 4 (2020-10-04)
View other versions
Added to PP index
2020-01-30

Total views
239 ( #24,418 of 2,432,774 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
19 ( #35,222 of 2,432,774 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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