Abstract
The so-called ‘Adams’ Thesis’ is often understood as the claim that the assertibility of an indicative conditional equals the corresponding conditional probability—schematically:
The Thesis is taken by many to be a touchstone of any theorizing about indicative conditionals. Yet it is unclear exactly what the Thesis is. I suggest some precise statements of it. I then rebut a number of arguments that have been given in its favor. Finally, I offer a new argument against it. I appeal to an old triviality result of mine against ‘Stalnaker’s Thesis’ that the probability of a conditional equals the corresponding conditional probability. I showed that for all finite-ranged probability functions, there are strictly more distinct values of conditional probabilities than there are distinct values of probabilities of conditionals, so they cannot all be paired up as Stalnaker’s Thesis promises. Conditional probabilities are too fine-grained to coincide with probabilities of conditionals across the board. If the assertibilities of conditionals are to coincide with conditional probabilities across the board, then assertibilities must be finer-grained than probabilities. I contend that this is implausible—it is surely the other way round. I generalize this argument to other interpretations of ‘As’, including ‘acceptability’ and ‘assentability’. I find it hard to see how any such figure of merit for conditionals can systematically align with the corresponding conditional probabilities.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams E. (1965) The logic of conditionals. Inquiry 8: 166–197
Adams E. (1975) The logic of conditionals. Reidel, Dordrecht
Adams E. (1990) Review of Conditionals, by Frank Jackson. Philosophical Review 99(3): 433–435
Adams E. (1998) A primer of probability logic. CSLI, Stanford University, Stanford California
Appiah A. (1984) Assertion and conditionals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bennett J. (2003) Conditionals. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Collins, J. (1991). Belief revision. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University.
DeRose K. (2010) The conditionals of deliberation. Mind 119(473): 1–42
Gibbard, A. (1981). Two recent theories of conditionals. In Harper et al. (Eds.) (pp. 211–247).
Hájek A. (1989) Probabilities of conditionals—revisited. Journal of Philosophical Logic 18: 423–428
Hájek A. (2003) What conditional probability could not be. Synthese 137(3): 273–323
Hájek A. (2007) The reference class problem is your problem too. Synthese 156: 563–585
Hájek, A. (2011). Conditional probability. In P. Bandyopadhyay & M. Forster (Eds.), Handbook for philosophy of statistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Hájek, A., & Hall, N. (1994). The hypothesis of the conditional construal of conditional probability, In E. Eells & B. Skyrms (Eds.), Probability and conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hájek, A. A poisoned dart for conditionals (MS).
Harper, W. L., Stalnaker, R., Pearce, G. (eds) (1981) Ifs. Reidel, Dordrecht
Jackson F. (1987) Conditionals. Blackwell, Oxford
Jackson F. (1998) Mind, method, and conditionals. Routledge, London
Jackson, F. (2008). Reply to Edgington. In I. Ravenscroft (Ed.), Mind, ethics, and conditionals: themes from the philosophy of Frank Jackson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leitgeb, H. A probabilistic semantics for counterfactuals. Part A (MS).
Lewis, D. (1976). Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probabilities. Philosophical Review, 85, 297–315 (reprinted in Harper et al.)
Lewis D. (1986) Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probabilities II. Philosophical Review, 95: 581–589
McGee V. (1989) Conditional probabilities and compounds of conditionals. Philosophical Review 98(4): 485–541
Pagin, P. (2008). Assertion. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). URL:http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/assertion/.
Ramsey, F. P. (1965). The foundations of mathematics (and other logical essays). London: Routledge, Kegan Paul
Skyrms B. (1980) Causal necessity. Yale University Press, New Haven
Stalnaker, R. (1970). Probability and conditionals. Philosophy of Science 37, 64–80 (reprinted in Harper et al.)
Williamson T. (2000) Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hájek, A. The Fall of “Adams’ Thesis”?. J of Log Lang and Inf 21, 145–161 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-012-9157-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-012-9157-1