Basic Conditional Reasoning: How Children Mimic Counterfactual Reasoning
Children approach counterfactual questions about stories with a reasoning strategy that falls short of adults’ Counterfactual Reasoning (CFR). It was dubbed “Basic Conditional Reasoning” (BCR) in Rafetseder et al. (Child Dev 81(1):376–389, 2010). In this paper we provide a characterisation of the differences between BCR and CFR using a distinction between permanent and nonpermanent features of stories and Lewis/Stalnaker counterfactual logic. The critical difference pertains to how consistency between a story and a conditional antecedent incompatible with a nonpermanent feature of the story is achieved. Basic conditional reasoners simply drop all nonpermanent features of the story. Counterfactual reasoners preserve as much of the story as possible while accommodating the antecedent.
KeywordsCounterfactual Reasoning Basic Conditional Reasoning Counterfactuals Possible worlds semantics Generic reasoning
- 1.Beck, S., D. P. Weisberg, P. Burns., and K. J. Riggs, Conditional reasoning and emotional experience: a review of the development of counterfactual thinking, Studia Logica, this issue.Google Scholar
- 2.Bennett, J. F., A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003.Google Scholar
- 3.Bhatt, R., and R. Pancheva, Conditionals, in The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Blackwell, Boston, 2007, pp. 638–687.Google Scholar
- 5.Edgington, D., Counterfactuals and the benefit of hindsight, in P. Dowe and P. Noordhof (eds.), Causation and Counterfactuals, Routledge, London, 2003.Google Scholar
- 7.Edgington, D., Estimating conditional chances and evaluating counterfactuals, Studia Logica, this issue.Google Scholar
- 13.Lewis, D., Counterfactuals, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1973.Google Scholar
- 14.Lycan, W. G., Real Conditionals, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.Google Scholar
- 15.Obermayr, S., Kontrafaktisches Denken unter Berücksichtigung hypothetischer Annahmen, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Salzburg, 2011.Google Scholar
- 16.Pelletier, J., and N. Asher, Generics and defaults, in J. van Bentham and A. ter Meulen (eds.), Handbook of Logic and Language, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1997.Google Scholar
- 19.Ward, T. B., and C. M. Sifonis, Task demands and generative thinking: what changes and what remains the same? Journal of Creative Behavior 31:245–259, 1997.Google Scholar
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.