Single Idea 14272

[catalogued under 10. Modality / B. Possibility / 8. Conditionals / d. Non-truthfunction conditionals]

Full Idea

Non-truth-functionalists agree that when A is false, 'If A,B' may be either true or false. I say "If you touch that wire, you will get an electric shock". You don't touch it. Was my remark true or false? They say it depends on the wire etc.

Gist of Idea

I say "If you touch that wire you'll get a shock"; you don't touch it. How can that make the conditional true?

Source

Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 2.1)

Book Reference

'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.4


A Reaction

This example seems to me to be a pretty conclusive refutation of the truth-functional view. How can the conditional be implied simply by my failure to touch the wire (which is what benighted truth-functionalists seem to believe)?