Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Last Week
On Conditionals
GEM2006/GET1028 Guest Lecture
Theresa Helke
NUS PhD Candidate in Philosophy
A
Therefore, if B, then A.
Last Week
A
~ (B A)
Last Week
A
Therefore, if B, then A.
Let
B
~A
x
Last Week
A
Therefore, if B, then A.
Let
A be 2 + 2 = 4.
B be 2 + 2 = 5.
This Week
Three goals
(1) Show that the problem is not with us but with our
theory.
(2) Give you an understanding of the main theories
of conditionals.
(3) Convince you that one theory is better than
others.
2 + 2 = 4.
Therefore, if 2 + 2 = 5, then 2 + 2 = 4.
2/17/16
Outline
Part I
(1) Consider four theories of indicative conditionals.
(2) Defend one.
Part II
(1) Consider some paradoxes.
(2) Demonstrate that the suppositional view can
solve them.
What is
?
What is ?
AB
The Theories
Four main ones
(1) Nave view
(2) True plus view
(3) Possible worlds view
(4) Suppositional view
Let
A be You bring me durian
B be I will pay you SGD 30
The Theories
Can distinguish them by their position vis--vis
the following two propositions:
(1) is identical to . (Equivalence Thesis)
(2) A sentence S is assertible if and only if S is true.
(Assertibility Thesis)
The Theories
(1) is identical to .
(2)A sentence S is assertible if and only if S is
true.
View
(1)
(2)
Naive
True plus
Possible worlds
Suppositional
2/17/16
OVER TO YOU
(1)What are we talking about today?
(2)What do I mean by
and ?
(3)How many theories are we looking at?
(4)How can we distinguish them?
(5)BONUS: What are the names of the theories?
and
a sentence S is assertible if and only if S is true.
Assertibility Thesis
Truth goes with assertibility.
2/17/16
is identical to
but
it is not the case that a sentence S is assertible if and
only if S is true.
(i) If I study for the exam, then I will fail the exam.
(ii) If 2 + 2 = 5, then 2 + 2 = 4.
(iii)If Angela Merkel is the Prime Minister of
Singapore, then Vienna is the capital of
Switzerland.
(iv)If Ben is not in the bar, hes in the library.
but
a sentence S is assertible if and only if S is true.
2/17/16
(i) If I study for the exam, then I will fail the exam.
(ii) If 2 + 2 = 5, then 2 + 2 = 4.
(iii)If Angela Merkel is the Prime Minister of
Singapore, then Vienna is the capital of
Switzerland.
(iv)If Ben is not in the bar, hes in the library.
(v) If Ben is taller than 2.5 meters, X.
and
it is not the case that a sentence S is assertible if and
only if S is true.
2/17/16
(i) If I study for the exam, then I will fail the exam.
(ii) If 2 + 2 = 5, then 2 + 2 = 4.
(iii)If Angela Merkel is the Prime Minister of
Singapore, then Vienna is the capital of
Switzerland.
(iv)If Ben is not in the bar, hes in the library.
(v) If Ben is taller than 2.5 meters, X.
Outline
Part I
(1) Considered four theories of indicative
conditionals.
(2) Defended the suppositional view.
Part II
(1) Consider some paradoxes.
(2) Demonstrate that the suppositional view can
solve them.
B
x
2/17/16
AB
~B
~~A
A
~A
x
B
x
OVER TO YOU
(1)What are we talking about in Part II?
(2)What is modus ponens?
(3)What is modus tollens?
(4)When is an argument epistemologically
valid?
(5)BONUS: What are the names of the logicians
who wrote the counterexamples?
The Paradoxes
The two we will look at are
(1) Vann McGees counterexample to modus ponens
(1985)
(2) Lewis Carrolls counterexample to modus tollens
(1894)
2/17/16
2/17/16
OVER TO YOU
(1)How did we solve McGees paradox?
(2)What do the major premises of McGees and
Carrolls counterexamples have in common?
(3)As a suppositional view theorist, how would
you solve Carrolls paradox?
Summary
This Week
Part I
(1) Considered four theories of indicative
conditionals.
(2) Defended the suppositional view.
Part II
(1) Considered McGees and Carrolls paradoxes.
(2) Demonstrated that the suppositional view can
solve them.
Three goals
(1) Show that the problem is not with us but with our
theory.
(2) Give you an understanding of the main theories
of conditionals.
(3) Convince you that the suppositional view is better
than others.
2/17/16
Thank you.
10