more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Often the purpose of a conditional, 'if p, q', can be served simply by negation and conjunction: not(p and not-q), the so-called 'material conditional'.
Gist of Idea
Some conditionals can be explained just by negation and conjunction: not(p and not-q)
Source
Willard Quine (Philosophy of Logic [1970], Ch.2)
Book Ref
Quine,Willard: 'Philosophy of Logic' [Prentice-Hall 1970], p.24
A Reaction
Logicians love the neatness of that, but get into trouble elsewhere with conditionals, particularly over the implications of not-p.
| 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] |