more on this theme
|
more from this text
Single Idea 14270
[filed under theme 10. Modality / B. Possibility / 8. Conditionals / b. Types of conditional
]
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]
The
28 ideas
from Dorothy Edgington
13764
|
Are conditionals truth-functional - do the truth values of A and B determine the truth value of 'If A, B'?
[Edgington]
|
13765
|
'If A,B' must entail ¬(A & ¬B); otherwise we could have A true, B false, and If A,B true, invalidating modus ponens
[Edgington]
|
13768
|
Validity can preserve certainty in mathematics, but conditionals about contingents are another matter
[Edgington]
|
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]
|
14271
|
Non-truth-functionalist say 'If A,B' is false if A is T and B is F, but deny that is always true for TT,FT and FF
[Edgington]
|
14272
|
I say "If you touch that wire you'll get a shock"; you don't touch it. How can that make the conditional true?
[Edgington]
|
14274
|
Inferring conditionals from disjunctions or negated conjunctions gives support to truth-functionalism
[Edgington]
|
14273
|
Conditional Proof is only valid if we accept the truth-functional reading of 'if'
[Edgington]
|
14276
|
The truth-functional view makes conditionals with unlikely antecedents likely to be true
[Edgington]
|
14275
|
Truth-function problems don't show up in mathematics
[Edgington]
|
14278
|
Truth-functionalists support some conditionals which we assert, but should not actually believe
[Edgington]
|
14281
|
A thing works like formal probability if all the options sum to 100%
[Edgington]
|
14282
|
On the supposition view, believe if A,B to the extent that A&B is nearly as likely as A
[Edgington]
|
14284
|
Conclusion improbability can't exceed summed premise improbability in valid arguments
[Edgington]
|
14287
|
Does 'If A,B' say something different in each context, because of the possibiites there?
[Edgington]
|
14290
|
Doctor:'If patient still alive, change dressing'; Nurse:'Either dead patient, or change dressing'; kills patient!
[Edgington]
|
13855
|
A conditional does not have truth conditions
[Edgington]
|
13853
|
It is a mistake to think that conditionals are statements about how the world is
[Edgington]
|
13854
|
Conditionals express what would be the outcome, given some supposition
[Edgington]
|
13857
|
Truth-functional possibilities include the irrelevant, which is a mistake
[Edgington]
|
13859
|
X believes 'if A, B' to the extent that A & B is more likely than A & ¬B
[Edgington]
|
12185
|
Logical necessity is epistemic necessity, which is the old notion of a priori
[Edgington, by McFetridge]
|
12207
|
Metaphysical possibility is discovered empirically, and is contrained by nature
[Edgington]
|
12206
|
Broadly logical necessity (i.e. not necessarily formal logical necessity) is an epistemic notion
[Edgington]
|
12208
|
An argument is only valid if it is epistemically (a priori) necessary
[Edgington]
|
12205
|
There are two families of modal notions, metaphysical and epistemic, of equal strength
[Edgington]
|