Truth Conditions for Indicative Conditionals . Robert Stalnaker’s () account is of this type: consider a possible situation in which you touch. Yet if it is a valid inference, then the indicative conditional conclusion must be logically For a fuller discussion and defense of this concept, see Stalnaker. The problem is that if one accepts the validity of the intuitively reasonable direct argument from the material conditional to the ordinary indicative conditional.
|Published (Last):||7 March 2017|
|PDF File Size:||8.97 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.35 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
You suppose assume, hypothesise that Aand make a hypothetical judgement about Bunder the supposition that Ain the light of your other beliefs. Now Conditiojals extends this consequence to arguments involving conditionals.
But it is implausible that the difficulties with the truth-functional conditional can be explained away in terms of what is an inappropriate conversational remark.
Daniel Dohrn – manuscript. On the contrary, I believe that if Reagan doesn’t win, Carter will win. The heuristic stalnnaker is that judgements of probability and conditional probability then translate into statements about proportions. But there is no consensus about the truth conditions of conditionals.
Indicative Conditionals (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The antecedent of 2 entails its consequent. The staonaker point can be made with negated conjunctions. A conditional judgement involves two propositions, which play different roles.
Is the nearest R -world a B -world or not? But by Hook’s lights, you may well be wrong; for it may not be a pentagon, and in that case it is true that if it’s a pentagon, it has six sides.
Suppose you think line 1 is about times more likely than line 2. It is hard to see that we would: In this case, no additional possibilities have been ruled out. However, in the wake of Lewis, Stalnaker himself proved this stronger result, for his conditional connective: Conditional desires appear to be like conditional beliefs: A Counterexample to Modus Tollens.
He seems to advocate an error theory of conditionals: We need now to consider the nearest world to w in which Reagan does not win. We now accept the conditional. But we want more than synonyms. Hook’s theory has the unhappy consequence that all conditionals with unlikely antecedents are likely to be true. University Press Scholarship Online.
A common complaint against Supp’s theory is that if conditionals do not express propositions with truth conditions, we have no account of the behaviour of compound sentences with conditionals as parts see e. In particular, you have no firm belief as to whether A is true or not. They try to show that when a sentence with a conditional subsentence is intelligible, it can be paraphrased, at least in context, by a sentence without a conditional subsentence.
That’s enough to know that if x isn’t red, y is red.
The other paradox of material implication is that according to Hook all conditionals with indicatlve consequents are true: All you know about their colour is that at least one of them is red. Call a set of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive propositions a partition.
For the purpose of doing mathematics, Frege’s judgement was probably correct. So 3 is a logical truth.
I think the consequent is true: Someone conjectures that if Ann isn’t home, Bob is. If a conditional has truth conditions, one indicatiev believe it to the extent that one thinks it is probably true. Consider a possible world in which A is true and otherwise differs minimally from the actual world. The valid ones are those which, in the special sense, preserve probability or conditional probability.
Classical, Early, and Medieval Prose and Writers: Bare conditionals have unpronounced modal operators [my emphasis]. The strength of your conditional belief is measured by how probable you judge the consequent, on the assumption that the antecedent is satisfied; and this is not the same as thinking a conditional proposition is probably true.