Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:09:50.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A PROBABILISTIC SEMANTICS FOR COUNTERFACTUALS. PART B

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2011

HANNES LEITGEB
HANNES LEITGEB*
Affiliation:
Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich In memory of Horacio Arló-Costa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This is part B of a paper in which we defend a semantics for counterfactuals which is probabilistic in the sense that the truth condition for counterfactuals refers to a probability measure. Because of its probabilistic nature, it allows a counterfactual ‘if A then B’ to be true even in the presence of relevant ‘A and not B’-worlds, as long such exceptions are not too widely spread. The semantics is made precise and studied in different versions which are related to each other by representation theorems. Despite its probabilistic nature, we show that the semantics and the resulting system of logic may be regarded as a naturalistically vindicated variant of David Lewis’ truth-conditional semantics and logic of counterfactuals. At the same time, the semantics overlaps in various ways with the non-truth-conditional suppositional theory for conditionals that derives from Ernest Adams’ work. We argue that counterfactuals have two kinds of pragmatic meanings and come attached with two types of degrees of acceptability or belief, one being suppositional, the other one being truth based as determined by our probabilistic semantics; these degrees could not always coincide due to a new triviality result for counterfactuals, and they should not be identified in the light of their different interpretation and pragmatic purpose. However, for plain assertability the difference between them does not matter. Hence, if the suppositional theory of counterfactuals is formulated with sufficient care, our truth-conditional theory of counterfactuals is consistent with it. The results of our investigation are used to assess a claim considered by Hawthorne and Hájek, that is, the thesis that most ordinary counterfactuals are false.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 85 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, E. W. (1975). The Logic of Conditionals: An Application of Probability to Deductive Logic. Synthese Library 86. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, E. W. (1986). On the logic of high probability. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 15, 255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arló-Costa, H., & Parikh, R. (2005). Conditional probability and defeasible inference. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 34, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, S. (1999). Counterfactuals, probabilistic counterfactuals and causation. Mind, 108, 427–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. (2003). A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brogard, B., & Salerno, J. (2007). Remarks on counterpossibles. Paper presented at the first annual Synthese conference Between Logic and Intuition: David Lewis and the Future of Formal Methods in Philosophy, October 3rd 2007.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csaszar, A. (1955). Sur la Structure des Espaces de Probabilitè Conditionelle. Acta Mathematica Hungarica, 6, 337–361.Google Scholar
Edgington, D. (1995). On conditionals. Mind, 104, 235–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgington, D. (1996). Vagueness by degrees. In Keefe, R., and Smith, P., editors. Vagueness. A Reader. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 294–316.Google Scholar
Edgington, D. (2004). Counterfactuals and the benefit of hindsight. In Dowe, P., and Noordhof, P., editors. Cause and Chance: Causation in an Indeterministic World. London: Routledge, pp. 12–27.Google Scholar
Eells, E., & Skyrms, B., editors. (1994). Probability and Conditionals. Belief Revision and Rational Decision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elga, A. (2000) Statistical mechanics and the asymmetry of counterfactuals. Philosophy of Science, 68(Suppl.), 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, S., & Krause, D. (2003). Quantum vagueness. Erkenntnis, 59, 97–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundersen, L. B. (2004). Outline of a new semantics for counterfactuals. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 85, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hájek, A. (unpublished). Most counterfactuals are false. Unpublished draft.Google Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. (2001). Lexicographic probability, conditional probability, and nonstandard probability. In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 17–30.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. (2005). Chance and counterfactuals. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70, 396–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvart, I. (2001). The counterfactual analysis of cause. Synthese, 127, 389–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, D., & Magidor, M. (1992). What does a conditional knowledge base entail? Artificial Intelligence, 55, 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitgeb, H. (2004). Inference on the Low Level. An Investigation into Deduction, Nonmonotonic Reasoning, and the Philosophy of Cognition. Applied Logic Series. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1973a). Counterfactuals and comparative possibility. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 418–446. Reprinted in Lewis (1986, pp. 3–31).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1973b). Counterfactuals. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13, 455–476. Reprinted in Lewis (1986, pp. 32–52).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance. In Jeffrey, R. C., editors. Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, Vol. 2. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 263–293. Reprinted in Lewis (1986, pp. 83–113).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1986). Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGee, V. (1985). A counterexample to modus ponens. The Journal of Philosophy, 82, 462–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, V. (1994). Learning the impossible. In Eells, E., & Skyrms, B., editors. Probability and Conditionals. Belief Revision and Rational Decision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 177–199.Google Scholar
Menzies, P. (2004). Causal models, token causation and processes. Philosophy of Science, 71, 820–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rényi, A. (1955). On a new axiomatic theory of probability. Acta Mathematica Hungarica, 6, 285–333.Google Scholar
Schurz, G. (2001). What is ‘normal’? An evolution-theoretic foundation of normic laws and their relation to statistical normality. Philosophy of Science, 68, 476–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schurz, G. (2005). Non-monotonic reasoning from an evolution-theoretic perspective: ontic, logical and cognitive foundations. Synthese, 146, 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schurz, G., & Leitgeb, H. (2008). Finitistic and frequentistic approximation of probability measures with or without σ-additivity. Studia Logica, 89, 257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spohn, W. (1986). The representation of Popper measures. Topoi, 5, 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (1976). Representation of conditional probabilities. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 5, 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, D. (2003). Everett and structure. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 34, 86–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2008). Chances, counterfactuals, and similarity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 77, 385–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yablo, S. (2009). Comments on Hannes Leitgeb, ‘A Probabilistic Semantics for Counterfactuals’. Commentary at the Conference on Philosophical Logic, Princeton University, May 24th 2009.Google Scholar