The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
4 replaced http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/ with https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/
source | link

[Source:] Counterfactuals have this form: If [S:] P were true, Q would be true.

Material conditional: If [P:] P is the case, then Q is the case.

Counterfactuals are not material conditionals! [Does the following para proves this by contradiction?]

[I split the longer sentences here:] [For want of a contradiction, assume that counterfactuals ARE material conditionals.] A material conditional will be true whenever the antecedent is false.A material conditional will be true whenever the antecedent is false. But this can't be the case for counterfactual conditionals since their antecedents are always false, and so every counterfactual conditional would be true. But every counterfactual conditional is not true. Thus counterfactuals are not material conditionals.

Call the first bolded protasis S (for present Subjunctive tense) and the second P (for simple Present tense). Besides the difference in grammatical mood, how do they differ?

[Source:] Counterfactuals have this form: If [S:] P were true, Q would be true.

Material conditional: If [P:] P is the case, then Q is the case.

Counterfactuals are not material conditionals! [Does the following para proves this by contradiction?]

[I split the longer sentences here:] [For want of a contradiction, assume that counterfactuals ARE material conditionals.] A material conditional will be true whenever the antecedent is false. But this can't be the case for counterfactual conditionals since their antecedents are always false, and so every counterfactual conditional would be true. But every counterfactual conditional is not true. Thus counterfactuals are not material conditionals.

Call the first bolded protasis S (for present Subjunctive tense) and the second P (for simple Present tense). Besides the difference in grammatical mood, how do they differ?

[Source:] Counterfactuals have this form: If [S:] P were true, Q would be true.

Material conditional: If [P:] P is the case, then Q is the case.

Counterfactuals are not material conditionals! [Does the following para proves this by contradiction?]

[I split the longer sentences here:] [For want of a contradiction, assume that counterfactuals ARE material conditionals.] A material conditional will be true whenever the antecedent is false. But this can't be the case for counterfactual conditionals since their antecedents are always false, and so every counterfactual conditional would be true. But every counterfactual conditional is not true. Thus counterfactuals are not material conditionals.

Call the first bolded protasis S (for present Subjunctive tense) and the second P (for simple Present tense). Besides the difference in grammatical mood, how do they differ?

3 deleted 129 characters in body
source | link

[Source:] Counterfactuals have this form: If [S:] P were true, Q would be true.

Material conditional: If [P:] P is the case, then Q is the case.

Counterfactuals are not material conditionals! [Does the following para proves this by contradiction?]

[I split the longer sentences here:] [For want of a contradiction, assume that counterfactuals ARE material conditionals.] A material conditional will be true whenever the antecedent is false. But this can't be the case for counterfactual conditionals since their antecedents are always false, and so every counterfactual conditional would be true. But every counterfactual conditional is not true. Thus counterfactuals are not material conditionals. (Source)

Call the first bolded itemprotasis S (for present Subjunctive tense) and the second P (for simple Present tense). Aside from thisBesides the difference in tense (ie temporal difference)grammatical mood, how do the bolded differ? They look the same; they only present item P, but implies nothing about whether the protasis is true or falsediffer?

Counterfactuals have this form: If [S:] P were true, Q would be true.

Material conditional: If [P:] P is the case, then Q is the case.

Counterfactuals are not material conditionals! [Does the following para proves this by contradiction?]

[I split the longer sentences here:] [For want of a contradiction, assume that counterfactuals ARE material conditionals.] A material conditional will be true whenever the antecedent is false. But this can't be the case for counterfactual conditionals since their antecedents are always false, and so every counterfactual conditional would be true. But every counterfactual conditional is not true. Thus counterfactuals are not material conditionals. (Source)

Call the first bolded item S (for present Subjunctive tense) and the second P (for simple Present tense). Aside from this difference in tense (ie temporal difference), how do the bolded differ? They look the same; they only present item P, but implies nothing about whether the protasis is true or false?

[Source:] Counterfactuals have this form: If [S:] P were true, Q would be true.

Material conditional: If [P:] P is the case, then Q is the case.

Counterfactuals are not material conditionals! [Does the following para proves this by contradiction?]

[I split the longer sentences here:] [For want of a contradiction, assume that counterfactuals ARE material conditionals.] A material conditional will be true whenever the antecedent is false. But this can't be the case for counterfactual conditionals since their antecedents are always false, and so every counterfactual conditional would be true. But every counterfactual conditional is not true. Thus counterfactuals are not material conditionals.

Call the first bolded protasis S (for present Subjunctive tense) and the second P (for simple Present tense). Besides the difference in grammatical mood, how do they differ?

    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/552121868594204672
2 added 88 characters in body
source | link

Counterfactuals have this form: If [S:] P were true, Q would be true.

Counterfactuals are not material conditionals!

Material conditional: If [P:] P is the case, then Q is the case.

ACounterfactuals are not material conditional will be true wheneverconditionals! [Does the antecedent is falsefollowing para proves this by contradiction?]

[I split the longer sentences here:] [For want of a contradiction, butassume that counterfactuals ARE material conditionals.] A material conditional will be true whenever the antecedent is false. But this cannotcan't be the case for counterfactual conditionals since their antecedents are always false, and so every counterfactual conditional would be true. But every counterfactual conditional is not true. Thus counterfactuals are not material conditionals. (Source)

Call the first bolded item S (for present Subjunctive tense) and the second P (for simple Present tense). Aside from this difference in tense (ie temporal difference), how do the bolded differ? They look the same; they only present item P, but implies nothing about whether the protasis is true or false?

Counterfactuals have this form: If [S:] P were true, Q would be true.

Counterfactuals are not material conditionals!

Material conditional: If [P:] P is the case, then Q is the case.

A material conditional will be true whenever the antecedent is false, but this cannot be the case for counterfactual conditionals since their antecedents are always false, and so every counterfactual conditional would be true. But every counterfactual conditional is not true. Thus counterfactuals are not material conditionals. (Source)

Call the first bolded item S (for present Subjunctive tense) and the second P (for simple Present tense). Aside from this difference in tense (ie temporal difference), how do the bolded differ? They look the same; they only present item P, but implies nothing about whether the protasis is true or false?

Counterfactuals have this form: If [S:] P were true, Q would be true.

Material conditional: If [P:] P is the case, then Q is the case.

Counterfactuals are not material conditionals! [Does the following para proves this by contradiction?]

[I split the longer sentences here:] [For want of a contradiction, assume that counterfactuals ARE material conditionals.] A material conditional will be true whenever the antecedent is false. But this can't be the case for counterfactual conditionals since their antecedents are always false, and so every counterfactual conditional would be true. But every counterfactual conditional is not true. Thus counterfactuals are not material conditionals. (Source)

Call the first bolded item S (for present Subjunctive tense) and the second P (for simple Present tense). Aside from this difference in tense (ie temporal difference), how do the bolded differ? They look the same; they only present item P, but implies nothing about whether the protasis is true or false?

1
source | link