AN ARGUMENT FOR CONJUNCTION CONDITIONALIZATION

LEE WALTERS, J. ROBERT G. WILLIAMS
2013 The Review of Symbolic Logic  
Are counterfactuals with true antecedents and consequents automatically true? That is, is Conjunction Conditionalization: (X ∧ Y) ⊃ (X > Y) valid? Stalnaker and Lewis think so, but many others disagree. We note here that the extant arguments for Conjunction Conditionalization are unpersuasive, before presenting a family of more compelling arguments. These arguments rely on some standard theorems of the logic of counterfactuals as well as a plausible and popular semantic claim about certain
more » ... about certain semifactuals. Denying Conjunction Conditionalization, then, requires rejecting other aspects of the standard logic of counterfactuals, or else our intuitive picture of semifactuals.
doi:10.1017/s1755020313000191 fatcat:2xpigsjyanhfbc4gvhvfbvw6pm