Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 153, Issue 3, pp 365–375 | Cite as

Realizing what might be

  • Malte WillerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Schulz has shown that the suppositional view of indicative conditionals leads to a corresponding view of epistemic modals. But his case backfires: the resulting theory of epistemic modals gets the facts wrong, and so we end up with a good argument against the suppositional view. I show how and why a dynamic view of indicative conditionals leads to a better theory of epistemic modals.

Keywords

Epistemic modals Indicative conditionals Dynamic semantics Suppositional view 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For comments, I would like to thank Nicholas Asher, Josh Dever, Hans Kamp, Mark Sainsbury, and an anonymous Philosophical Studies referee.

References

  1. Adams, E. (1975). The logic of conditionals. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, E. (1998). A primer of probability logic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, D. (2006). Zif is if. Mind 115(459), 519–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeRose, K. (1991). Epistemic possibilities. Philosophical Review 100(4), 581–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edgington, D. (1995). On conditionals. Mind 104(414), 235–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gärdenfors, P. (1982). Imaging and conditionalization. Journal of Philosophy 79(12), 747–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gillies, A. (2004). Epistemic conditionals and conditional epistemics. Noûs 38(4), 585–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gillies, A. (2009). On truth-conditions for if (but not quite only if). Philosophical Review 118(3), 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gillies, A. (2010). Iffiness. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3.Google Scholar
  10. Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1), 39–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases (PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst).Google Scholar
  12. Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and representation. In: Groenendijk, J., Janssen, T., Stokhof, M. (eds.), Formal methods in the study of language, Part I (pp. 277–320). Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
  13. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to the logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kamp, H., van Genabith, J., & Reyle, U. (2009). Discourse representation theory. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~hans/Papers/hpl-drt.pdf.
  15. Ramsey, F. P. (1990). General propositions and causality. In: Mellor D. H. (eds) Philosophical papers (pp. 145–163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Schulz, M. (forthcoming). Wondering what might be. Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
  17. Stalnaker, R.C. (1978). Assertion. In: Cole, P. (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9 (pp. 315 – 332). New York: New York Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Veltman, F. (1985) Logics for conditionals (PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam).Google Scholar
  19. Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25(3), 221–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Willer, M. (forthcoming). New surprises for the Ramsey test. Synthese.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations