Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals
- 218 Downloads
The last section made it clear that an analysis which at first seems to fail is viable after all. It is viable if we let it depend on a partition function to be provided by the context of conversation. This analysis leaves certain traits of the partition function open. I have tried to show that this should be so. Specifying these traits as Pollock does leads to wrong predictions. And leaving them open endows counterfactuals with just the right amount of variability and vagueness.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Burgess, J. P.: 1979, Quick Completeness Proofs for Some Logics of Conditionals, manuscript, Princeton University.Google Scholar
- Klein, W.: 1979, Local Deixis in Route Directions, to appear in R. J. Jarvella and W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place, Action. Studies of Language in Context, Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Kratzer, A.: 1977, ‘What ‘Must’ and ‘Can’ Must and Can Mean’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 337–355.Google Scholar
- Lewis, D. K.: 1981, ‘Ordering Semantics and Premise Semantics for Counterfactuals’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, this issue.Google Scholar
- Pollock, J. L.: 1976, Subjunctive Reasoning, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
- Rescher, N.: 1973, The Coherence Theory of Truth, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Veltman, F.: 1976, Prejudices, Presuppositions and the Theory of Conditionals, Amsterdam Papers in Formal Grammar, 1.Google Scholar