The Logical Web - Why Most Alternatives to the Material Account are Ad Hoc

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The material account of indicative conditionals states that indicative conditional sentences and the material implication have the same truth conditions. Many conditional logics are motivated by attempts to fix the counter-intuitive aspects associated with the material account. Some counter-intuitive instances of classical argumentative forms, e.g., strengthening of the antecedent, contraposition, and conditional negation, are regarded as evidence that the material account is wrong and that classical logic should be rejected in favour of a new logic system in which these argumentative forms are invalid. It is argued that these logical revisions are ad hoc, because those controversial argumentative forms are implied by other argumentative forms we want to keep. It is impossible to remove a counter-intuitive argumentative form from a logical system without getting entangled in an intricate logical web, since these revisions imply the removal of other parts of logic we want to maintain. Consequently, these revisions are incoherent and unwarranted. At the very least, the usual approach in the analysis of putative counter-examples of argumentative forms must be seriously reconsidered.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
SILTLW
Upload history
First archival date: 2020-01-30
Latest version: 7 (2021-01-05)
View other versions
Added to PP index
2020-01-30

Total views
64 ( #45,978 of 57,067 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
26 ( #28,583 of 57,067 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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