more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Straightforward statements about the past, present or future, to which a conditional clause is attached - the traditional class of indicative conditionals - do (in my view) constitute a single semantic kind.
Gist of Idea
Simple indicatives about past, present or future do seem to form a single semantic kind
Source
Dorothy Edgington (Conditionals (Stanf) [2006], 1)
Book Ref
'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.2
A Reaction
This contrasts with Idea 14269, where the future indicatives are group instead with the counterfactuals.
Related Idea
Idea 14269 Maybe forward-looking indicatives are best classed with the subjunctives [Edgington]
| 9014 | Some conditionals can be explained just by negation and conjunction: not(p and not-q) [Quine] |
| 14360 | Possible worlds for subjunctives (and dispositions), and no-truth for indicatives? [Jackson] |
| 13770 | There are many different conditional mental states, and different conditional speech acts [Edgington] |
| 14270 | Simple indicatives about past, present or future do seem to form a single semantic kind [Edgington] |
| 14269 | Maybe forward-looking indicatives are best classed with the subjunctives [Edgington] |
| 13716 | 'If B hadn't shot L someone else would have' if false; 'If B didn't shoot L, someone else did' is true [Sider] |