more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 14357

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

Full Idea

In the possible worlds account of conditionals A⊃B is not sufficient for A→B. If A is false then A⊃B is true, but here nothing is implied about whether the world most like the actual world except that A is true is or is not a B-world.

Clarification

⊃ is material implication, equivalent to ¬AvB

Gist of Idea

Possible worlds account, unlike A⊃B, says nothing about when A is false

Source

Frank Jackson (Conditionals [2006], 'Possible')

Book Ref

'Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Language', ed/tr. Devitt,M/Hanley,R [Blackwell 2006], p.215


A Reaction

The possible worlds account seems to be built on Ramsey's idea of just holding A true and seeing what you get. Being committed to B being automatically true if A is false seems highly counterintuitive.


The 9 ideas from 'Conditionals'

Modus ponens requires that A→B is F when A is T and B is F [Jackson]
When A and B have the same truth value, A→B is true, because A→A is a logical truth [Jackson]
(A&B)→A is a logical truth, even if antecedent false and consequent true, so it is T if A is F and B is T [Jackson]
'¬', '&', and 'v' are truth functions: the truth of the compound is fixed by the truth of the components [Jackson]
In the possible worlds account of conditionals, modus ponens and modus tollens are validated [Jackson]
Possible worlds for subjunctives (and dispositions), and no-truth for indicatives? [Jackson]
Only assertions have truth-values, and conditionals are not proper assertions [Jackson]
Possible worlds account, unlike A⊃B, says nothing about when A is false [Jackson]
We can't insist that A is relevant to B, as conditionals can express lack of relevance [Jackson]