## Abstract

The question I am addressing in this paper is the following: how is it possible to empirically test, or confirm, counterfactuals? After motivating this question in Section 1, I will look at two approaches to counterfactuals, and at how counterfactuals can be empirically tested, or confirmed, if at all, on these accounts in Section 2. I will then digress into the philosophy of probability in Section 3. The reason for this digression is that I want to use the way observable absolute and relative frequencies, two empirical notions, are used to empirically test, or confirm, hypotheses about objective chances, a metaphysical notion, as a role-model. Specifically, I want to use this probabilistic account of the testing of chance hypotheses as a role-model for the account of the testing of counterfactuals, another metaphysical notion, that I will present in Sections 4 to 8. I will conclude by comparing my proposal to one non-probabilistic and one probabilistic alternative in Section 9.

This is a preview of subscription content,

to check access.## Notes

On the account of testing envisaged by [52] and sketched above one cannot distinguish between confirmation for a counterfactual of the form ‘if the value of

*F*were set to*f*, then the value of*G*would change to*g*’ and confirmation for a counterfactual of the form ‘if the value of*F*were set to*f*, then the probability or chance that the value of*G*is*g*would change to 1’.The Straight Rule, and hence the Axiom of Converge or Reichenbach Axiom, does not enable us to learn hypotheses about objective chances. As is well known, though, it can be reformulated as a rule for inferring limiting relative frequencies. Then one can show that it eventually conjectures values that are arbitrarily close to the limiting relative frequencies in the actual world, provided the latter exist.

I will mostly ignore contexts, as the context sensitivity of counterfactuals does not play a role for the purposes of this paper.

Strictly speaking this notion of admissibility is relative to a context

*c*, just as the notion of admissibility in the Principal Principle is relative to a point of time*t*. And strictly speaking one needs to assume that the presuppositions of a given context are admissible in this context, and that the world’s theory of deterministic alethic modality, or counterfactuality, is admissible in all contexts. However, the context sensitivity of counterfactuals does not play a role for present purposes, and so the presuppositions of all contexts can be assumed to be tautological. It is perhaps worth noting that history up to some time is a context. For details see ([26]: Section 4).Spohn ([47]: Chapter 12) proves many much more impressive results that are related to the Obvious Observation. However, the mathematics is not exactly the same, and the interpretation is entirely different. I presently cannot relate his results to mine in an illuminating way.

In general the functions

*Y*_{ i }need not have the same index set*I*as the first family (*X*_{ i })_{ i ∈ I }. Nor do they have to have a common range 𝓨^{∗}and associated algebra 𝓥^{∗}. However, this is the special case we are interested in.Leitgeb’s [28, 29] probabilistic analysis of counterfactuals requires Pr(

*C*∣*A*) = 1 for*A*⎕→*C*to be true, where Pr is a Popper-Rényi measure ([40, 42]) that is interpreted objectively as time-relative conditional single case chance. Independence in the sense of a Popper-Rényi measure Pr is a relation between three propositions:*A*is independent of*B*conditional on*C*just in case Pr(*A*∩*B*∣*C*) = Pr(*A*∣*C*)⋅ Pr(*B*∣*C*) ([43]: 103). Counterfactual independence is a relation between two propositions. Therefore the definition of independence in the sense of a Popper-Rényi measure has to be modified so that it becomes a relation between two propositions*A*and*B*. It is tempting to say that*A*is independent of*B*just in case*A*is independent of*B*conditional on the set of all possible worlds, the tautological proposition*W*. However, on Leitgeb’s logic of counterfactuals, just as on ours, ⊤ ⎕→*α*is not logically equivalent to*α*. Therefore this temptation should be resisted. There are other options for modifying independence in the sense of a Popper-Rényi measure so that it becomes a relation between two propositions (see [14]). However, without stipulating which modification one chooses there are no formal relations between counterfactual independence, which relates two propositions, and independence in the sense of a Popper-Rényi measure Pr, which relates three propositions. Another complication may arise from a negative answer to the question whether the set of propositions for which time-relative conditional single case chances are defined is as rich as the set of propositions which can figure in the consequent of a counterfactual.The comparison to [5] is complicated by the fact that the latter works with a multidimensional possible worlds semantics.

Modal logicians might be interested in the fact that this provides an example of a sentence

*α*such that: ⊩□*α*and ⊯*α*.

## References

Adams, E.W. (1998).

*A Primer of Probability Logic*. CLSI Publications: Stanford.Alchourrón, C.E, Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions.

*Journal of Symbolic Logic*,*50*, 510–530.Baumgartner, M., & Glynn, L. (2013). Introduction to special issue on ‘Actual Causation’.

*Erkenntnis*,*78*, 1–8.Boutilier, C. (1996). Iterated revision and minimal change of belief.

*Journal of Philosophical Logic*,*25*, 263–305.Bradley, R. (2012). Multidimensional possible-world semantics for conditionals.

*Philosophical Review*,*121*, 539–571.Brössel, P., Eder, A.-M., Huber, F. (2013). Evidential support and instrumental rationality.

*Philosophy and Phenomenological Research*,*87*, 279–300.Briggs, R. (2009). The big bad bug bites anti-realists about chance.

*Synthese*,*167*, 81–92.Briggs, R. (2012). Interventionist counterfactuals.

*Synthese*,*160*, 139–166.Carnap, R. (1980). A basic system of inductive logic, Part 2 In R. C. Jeffrey (Ed.)

*Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability*(Vol. II, pp. 7–155). Berkeley: University of Berkeley Press.Collins, J., Hall, N., Paul, L.A. (2004).

*Causation and Counterfactuals*. Cambridge: MIT Press.Darwiche, A., & Pearl, J. (1997). On the logic of iterated belief revision.

*Artificial Intelligence*,*89*, 1–29.Earman, J. (1992).

*Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory*. Cambridge: MIT Press.Edgington, D. (2008). Counterfactuals.

*Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society*,*108*, 1–21.Fitelson, B., & Hájek, A (ms). Declarations of Independence.

Galles, D., & Pearl, J. (1998). An axiomatic characterization of causal counterfactuals.

*Foundations of Science*,*1*, 151–182.Halpern, J.Y. (2008). Defaults and normality in causal structures. In

*Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008)*(pp 198–208).Halpern, J.Y. (2013). From causal models to counterfactual structures.

*The Review of Symbolic Logic*,*6*, 305–322.Halpern, J.Y., & Hitchcock, C.R. (2010). Actual Causation and the Art of Modelling In R. Dechter, H. Geffner, J. Halpern (Eds.),

*Heuristics, Probability, and Causality*(pp. 383–406). London: College Publications.Halpern, J.Y., & Hitchcock, C.R. (2013). Compact representations of extended causal models.

*Cognitive Science*,*37*, 986–1010.Hild, M., & Spohn, W. (2008). The measurement of ranks and the laws of iterated contraction.

*Artificial Intelligence*,*172*, 1195–1218.Hintikka, J. (1961).

*Knowledge and Belief. An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions*. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Huber, F. (2007). The consistency argument for ranking functions.

*Studia Logica*,*86*, 299–329.Huber, F. (2013a). Belief revision I: the AGM theory.

*Philosophy Compass*,*8*, 604–612.Huber, F. (2013b). Belief revision II: ranking theory.

*Philosophy Compass*,*8*, 613–621.Huber, F. (2013c). Structural equations and beyond. The Review of Symbolic Logic,

*6*, 709–732.Huber, F. (2014). New foundations for counterfactuals.

*Synthese*.Jeffrey, R.C. (1970). Dracula meets Wolfman: acceptance vs. partial belief In M. Swain (Ed.),

*Induction, Acceptance, and Rational Belief*(pp. 157–185). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Leitgeb, H. (2012a). A probabilistic semantics for counterfactuals. Part A.

*Review of Symbolic Logic*,*5*, 26–84.Leitgeb, H. (2012b). A probabilistic semantics for counterfactuals. Part B.

*Review of Symbolic Logic*,*5*, 85–121.Leitgeb, H. (2013). Reducing belief simpliciter to degrees of belief.

*Annals of Pure and Applied Logic*,*164*, 1338–1389.Lewis, D.K. (1973).

*Counterfactuals*. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Lewis, D.K. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow.

*Noûs*,*13*, 455–476.Lewis, D.K. (1980). A subjectivist’s guide to objective chance In R. C. Jeffrey (Ed.)

*Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability*(Vol. II, pp. 263–293). Berkeley: University of Berkeley Press.Lin, H., & Kelly, K.T. (2012). Propositional reasoning that tracks probabilistic reasoning.

*Journal of Philosophical Logic*,*41*, 957–981.Mumford, S. (1998).

*Dispositions*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Nozick, R. (1981).

*Philosophical Explanations*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Paul, L.A. (2000). Aspect causation.

*Journal of Philosophy*,*XCVII*, 235–256.Pearl, J. (2009).

*Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference*(2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Percival, P. (2002). Epistemic consequentialism.

*Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society*,*Supplementary 76*, 121–151.Popper, K.R. (1955). Two autonomous axiom systems for the calculus of probabilities.

*British Journal for the Philosophy of Science*,*6*, 51–57.Reichenbach, H. (1939).

*Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Rényi, A. (1955). On a new axiomatic system for probability.

*Acta Mathematica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae*,*6*, 285–335.Rényi, A. (1970).

*Foundations of Probability*. San Francisco: Holden-Day.Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., Scheines, R. (2000).

*Causation, Prediction, and Search*(2nd edn.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Spohn, W. (1988). Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states In W. L. Harper, & B. Skyrms (Eds.),

*Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics*(Vol. II, pp. 105–134). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Spohn, W. (2010). Chance and necessity: From humean supervenience to humean projection In E. Eells, & J. Fetzer (Eds.),

*The Place of Probability in Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science*(Vol. 284, pp. 101–131). Dordrecht: Springer.Spohn, W. (2012).

*The Laws of Belief. Ranking Theory and its Philosophical Applications*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Spohn, W. (2013). A ranking-theoretic approach to conditionals.

*Cognitive Science*,*37*, 1074–1106.Stalnaker, R.C. (1968). A theory of conditionals In N. Rescher (Ed.),

*Studies in Logical Theory. American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series*(Vol. 2, pp. 98–112). Oxford: Blackwell.Stalnaker, R.C. (2002). Epistemic consequentialism.

*Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society*,*Supplementary 76*, 153–168.Van Fraassen (1977). Relative frequencies.

*Synthese*,*34*, 133–166.Woodward, J.F. (2003).

*Making Things Happen*. New York: Oxford University Press.Zhang, J. (2013). A lewisian logic of causal counterfactuals.

*Minds and Machines*,*23*, 77–93.Zhang, J., Lam, W.-Y., De Clercq, R. (2013). A peculiarity in pearl’s logic of interventionist counterfactuals.

*Journal of Philosophical Logic*,*42*, 783–794.

## Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to an anonymous referee, Alan Hájek, Christopher R. Hitchcock, Hannes Leitgeb, Timothy Williamson, and, especially, to Wolfgang Spohn for many most helpful comments and suggestions on several earlier versions of this paper

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Rights and permissions

## About this article

### Cite this article

Huber, F. What Should I Believe About What Would Have Been the Case?.
*J Philos Logic* **44**, 81–110 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-014-9314-x

Received:

Accepted:

Published:

Issue Date:

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-014-9314-x