more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Subjunctive conditionals are intimately connected with dispositional properties and causation. ...Consequently, a position some find attractive is that possible worlds theory applies to subjunctives, while the no-truth theory applies to indicatives.
Clarification
'Subjunctive conditionals' are also called 'counterfactuals'
Gist of Idea
Possible worlds for subjunctives (and dispositions), and no-truth for indicatives?
Source
Frank Jackson (Conditionals [2006], 'Indicative')
Book Ref
'Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Language', ed/tr. Devitt,M/Hanley,R [Blackwell 2006], p.221
A Reaction
My intuitions are to reject this and favour a unified account, where both sorts of conditionals are mappings of the relationships among the facts of actuality. Nice slogan!
| 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] |