Philosophical Studies

, Volume 140, Issue 2, pp 229–246 | Cite as

Brogaard and Salerno on antirealism and the conditional fallacy

  • Luca Moretti
Original Paper


Brogaard and Salerno (2005, Nous, 39, 123–139) have argued that antirealism resting on a counterfactual analysis of truth is flawed because it commits a conditional fallacy by entailing the absurdity that there is necessarily an epistemic agent. Brogaard and Salerno’s argument relies on a formal proof built upon the criticism of two parallel proofs given by Plantinga (1982, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 56, 47–70) and Rea (2000, Nous, 34, 291–301). If this argument were conclusive, antirealism resting on a counterfactual analysis of truth should probably be abandoned. I argue however that the antirealist is not committed to a controversial reading of counterfactuals presupposed in Brogaard and Salerno’s proof, and that the antirealist can in principle adopt an alternative reading that makes this proof invalid. My conclusion is that no reductio of antirealism resting on a counterfactual analysis of truth has yet been provided.


Antirealism Conditional fallacy Brogaard Salerno Counterfactuals Counterpossibles Truth Epistemic truth Realism/antirealism debate Prantinga Rea Wright Intuitionistic logic Intuitionistic modal logic Lewis Semantic antirealism Alethic antirealism Combinatorialism Nathan Salmon Armstrong 



I am very grateful to Nicola Ciprotti, John Divers, Michael Gabbay, Uriah Kriegel, Jonathan Kvanvig, Julien Murzi, Valeria de Paiva, Tommaso Piazza, Alex K. Simpson, Nicholas J.J. Smith and a referee of this Journal for valuable discussions and important criticisms upon previous versions of this paper. A special thank to Arif Ahmed and Berit Brogaard.


  1. Alechina, N., De Paiva, V., Mendler, M., & Ritter, E. (2001). Categorical and Kripke semantics for constructive S4 modal logic. In L. Fribourg (Ed.), Proceeding of computer science logic (CSL 2001). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2142, pp. 292–307). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D. M. (1989). A combinatorial theory of possibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brogaard, B., & Salerno, J. (2005). Anti-realism, theism and the conditional fallacy. Nous, 39, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Paiva, V., & Mendler, M. (2005). Constructive CK for contexts. In L. Serafini & P. Bouquet (Eds.), Proceeding of the Workshop on Context Representation and Reasoning (Vol. 136). Paris, France, July 2005, Aachen: CEUR-WS.Google Scholar
  5. Divers, J. (2002). Possible worlds. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Fisher Servi, G. (1980). Semantics for a class of intuitionistic modal calculi. In M. L. Dalla Chiara (Ed.), Italian studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 59–72). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  7. Fisher Servi, G. (1984). Axiomatizations for some intuitionistic modal logics. Rendiconti di Matematica di Torino, 42, 179–195.Google Scholar
  8. Gabbay, D., Kurucz, A., Wolter, F., & Zakharyaschev, M. (2003). Many-dimensional modal logics: Theory and applications. Studies in logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  9. Goodman, J. (2004). An extended Lewis/Stalnaker semantics and the new problem of counterpossibles. Philosophical Papers, 33, 35–66.Google Scholar
  10. Hayaki, R. (2005). The transience of possibility. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 1(2), 25–36.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. K. (1973). Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Mares, E. D. (1997). Who’s afraid of impossible worlds? Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 516–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nolan, D. (1997). Impossible worlds: A modest approach. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 535–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Plantinga, A. (1982). How to be an anti-realist. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 56, 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Priest, G. (1997). Sylvan’s box. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 573–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rea, M. (2000). Theism and epistemic truth-equivalences. Nous, 34, 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Read, S. (1995). Thinking about logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Salmon, N. (1989). The logic of what might have been. Philosophical Review, 98, 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Salmon, N. (1993). This side of paradox. Philosophical Topics, 21, 187–197.Google Scholar
  20. Simpson, A. K. (1994). The proof theory and semantics of intuitionistic modal logic. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  21. Wright, C. (2000). Truth as sort of epistemic: Putnam’s peregrinations. Journal of Philosophy, 97, 335–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yagisawa, T. (1988). Beyond possible worlds. Philosophical Studies, 53, 175–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zagzebski, L. (1990). What if the impossible had been actual? In M. Beatty (Ed.), Christian theism and the problems of philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Time, Department of PhilosophyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations