Timeline for The Fallacy of Contraposition for Counterfactuals?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2015 at 20:32 | comment | added | Quentin Ruyant | I hope it is clearer now. | |
| May 4, 2015 at 20:32 | comment | added | Quentin Ruyant | To go back to your example, 3 and 4 are using logical "if...then...". But in so far as you mention S or R's desires etc. you're assuming some kind of causal connection, so you're assuming something stronger than a logical "if...then" which is better analysed in terms of what is possible/impossible (in terms of possible worlds). Logical sentences only describe what happens to be the case or not in our world, not causal connections. | |
| May 4, 2015 at 20:22 | comment | added | Quentin Ruyant | By formalise counterfactuals, I mean analyse how they're used everyday and try to express this usage with pure logic and possible worlds. The problem is that everyday use is very contextual and varies a lot, with hidden assumptions and the like. | |
| May 4, 2015 at 20:19 | comment | added | Quentin Ruyant | For example "necessarily, if A then B" would be analysed as "in all possible worlds where A is the case, B is also the case". Such talk of possible worlds can be used to emphasize a causal connection between A and B which is stronger than a mere logical " if...then" | |
| May 4, 2015 at 20:14 | comment | added | Quentin Ruyant | In everyday use, very often, "if A then B" assumes some sort of causal or necessary connection between A and B, which is not the case in logic. Philosophers often analyse necessity in terms of possible worlds. | |
| May 4, 2015 at 20:12 | comment | added | Quentin Ruyant | I mean: apply the definition of "if... then". In logic, the definition of "if A then B" is this: either A is false, or B is true, or both. My answer basically says that "if...then..." in logic is not the same as "if...then..." in everyday use. | |
| S May 4, 2015 at 2:09 | history | suggested | user8572 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I changed OP; so this must be updated. also typos
|
| May 3, 2015 at 22:34 | comment | added | user8572 |
Thank you. Sorry for my naivety, but I don't understand your answer, because the diction seems too abstract and complex. May I ask if you would please please explain as though I were 10 years old? What do you mean by this in Apply this to (3)? What do you mean by formalize contrafactuals? What is meant by `necessitation and possible worlds reasonning'?
|
|
| May 3, 2015 at 21:06 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 4, 2015 at 2:09 | |||||
| Dec 3, 2014 at 18:32 | history | answered | Quentin Ruyant | CC BY-SA 3.0 |