PhilArchive
open access
Reasonable Inferences for Counterfactuals
This paper is about four inferences patterns governing conditionals: Transitivity, Simplification, Contraposition, and Antecedent Strengthening. Transitivity, Simplification, and Contraposition are intuitively compelling. Although Antecedent Strengthening may seem less attractive at first, close attention to the full range of data reveals that it too has considerable appeal. An adequate theory of conditionals should account for these facts. The strict theory does so by validating them. But the variably strict theory invalidates them. So the variably strict theorist faces a question: why do we find these inferences so compelling? In this paper, I suggest an answer on her behalf: that they are reasonable inferences in the sense introduced by Stalnaker (1975).
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Causal counterfactuals without miracles or backtracking#77544
- Should we be skeptics or contextualists about counterfactual conditionals?#749080
- The Narrow Ontic Counterfactual Account of Distinctively Mathematical Explanation#761508
- Counter Countermathematical Explanations#743995
- The Scope of Reciprocal Causation#87914
Record · ID 718089
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive