Roads to Necessitarianism

Mandelkern, Matthew; Rothschild, Daniel

doi:10.1007/s10992-020-09562-9

1355 Accesses
2 Citations
8 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
Cite this article

Abstract

We show that each of three natural sets of assumptions about the conditional entails necessitarianism: that anything possible is necessary. Since most agree that this conclusion is obviously false, this shows that at least one member of each set of assumptions must be rejected. All of these assumptions are, however, widely accepted and well-motivated. This creates a puzzle which we leave open.

References

Arló-Costa, H. (2001). Bayesian epistemology and epistemic conditionals: on the status of the export-import laws. The Journal of Philosophy, 98(11), 555–593.
Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2012). Counterfactuals without possible worlds. The Journal of Philosophy, 109, 221–246.
Article Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2017). Truthmaker semantics. In Wrigh, B.H.C., & Miller, A. (Eds.) Blackwell companion to the philosophy of language: Blackwell.
Gibbard, A. (1981). Two recent theories of conditionals. In Harper, W.L., Stalnaker, R., & Pearce, G. (Eds.) Ifs: conditionals, beliefs, decision, chance, and time (pp. 211–247). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Gillies, A. (2009). On truth conditions for If (but not quite only If). Philosophical Review, 118(3), 325–349.
Article Google Scholar
Hakli, R., & Negri, S. (2011). Does the deduction theorem fail for modal logic? Synthese, 187(3), 849–867. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9905-9.
Article Google Scholar
Khoo, J. (2013). A note on Gibbard’s proof. Philosophical Studies, 166(1), 153–164.
Article Google Scholar
Khoo, J., & Mandelkern, M. (2019). Triviality results and the relationship between logical and natural languages. Mind, 128(510), 485–526. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzy006.
Article Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In Eikmeyer, H., & Rieser, H. (Eds.) Words, worlds, and contexts: new approaches in word semantics (pp. 38–74): de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. (1986). Conditionals. Chicago Linguistics Society, 22(2), 1–15.
Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Mandelkern, M. (2019). Crises of Identity. In Schlöder, J.J., McHugh, D., & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.) Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 279–288). University of Amsterdam.
Mandelkern, M. (2020). If p, then p! Manuscript, All Souls College, Oxford. https://philpapers.org/rec/MANIPT-2.
Mandelkern, M. (2020). Import-export and ‘and’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 100(1), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12513.
Article Google Scholar
McGee, V. (1985). A counterexample to modus ponens. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(9), 462–471.
Article Google Scholar
Ramsey, F.P. (1978/1931). General propositions and causality. In Mellor, D.H. (Ed.) Foundations: essays in philosophy, logic, mathematics and economics (pp. 133–51): Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Stalnaker, R. (1968). A theory of conditionals. In Rescher, N. (Ed.) Studies in logical theory (pp. 98–112). Oxford: Blackwell.
Stalnaker, R.C., & Thomason, R.H. (1970). A semantic analysis of conditional logic. Theoria, 36(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1970.tb00408.x.
Article Google Scholar
van Wijnbergen-Huitink, J., Elqayam, S., & Over, D.E. (2014). The probability of iterated conditionals. Cognitive Science, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12169.
Yalcin, S. (2007). Epistemic modals. Mind, 116(464), 983–1026. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzm983.
Article Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to two anonymous referees for this journal and to Angelika Kratzer for helpful feedback on this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

All Souls College, Oxford, OX1 4AL, UK
Matthew Mandelkern
UCL, London, UK
Daniel Rothschild

Authors

Matthew Mandelkern
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Daniel Rothschild
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Mandelkern.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

1.1 A.1 First Proof: Right Monotonicity

For arbitrary p:

i.
\(\models \Box (\neg (\neg p \wedge p))\supset { ((\neg p \wedge p)>\neg p)}\) Conditional Quodlibet
ii.
\( \Box \neg (\neg p \wedge p) \models { (\neg p \wedge p)>\neg p}\) Deduction Theorem, (i)
iii.
⊧(¬p ∧ p) > ¬p K, (ii)
iv.
⊧¬p > (p > ¬p) Import-Export, (iii)
v.
\(\models \lozenge p \supset \neg (p>\neg p )\) Restricted Aristotle’s Thesis, PC, K
vi.
\(\models \lozenge p \supset (\neg (p>\neg p )\vee p)\) PC, (v)
vii.
\(\models \lozenge p\supset ((p>\neg p )\supset p)\) PC, (vi)
viii.
\(\lozenge p\models (p>\neg p )\supset p\) Deduction Theorem, (vii)
ix.
\(\Box \lozenge p\models \neg p> p\) Right Monotonicity, (iv), (viii)
x.
\(\Box \lozenge p\models \Box p\) Restricted Aristotle’s Thesis, PC, (ix)
xi.
\(\lozenge p\models \Box \lozenge p\) 5
xii.
\(\lozenge p\models \Box p\) PC, (x), (xi)

1.2 A.2 Second Proof: Logical Implication and Logical Ad Falsum

We note first that the following is entailed by our definition of entailment and our classical semantics for ‘∧’:

Monotonicity: If p⊧q then (p ∧ r)⊧q

Then, for arbitrary p:

i. \(\models \Box (\neg ((\lozenge p\wedge \neg p )\wedge p))\supset (({(\lozenge p\wedge \neg p) \wedge p)>\neg p)}\)
Conditional Quodlibet
ii. \(\Box \neg ((\lozenge p\wedge \neg p) \wedge p)\models ({(\lozenge p\wedge \neg p) \wedge p)>\neg p}\)
Deduction Theorem, (i)
iii. \( \models ((\lozenge p\wedge \neg p) \wedge p)>\neg p\) K, (ii)
iv. \(\models {(\lozenge p \wedge \neg p) > (p>\neg p) }\) Import-Export, (iii)
v. \(\models \lozenge p \supset \neg (p>\neg p )\) Restricted Aristotle’s Thesis, PC, K
vi. \(\lozenge p \models \neg (p>\neg p ) \) Deduction Theorem, (v)
vii. \(\lozenge p\wedge \neg p \models \neg (p>\neg p )\) Monotonicity, (vi)
viii. \(\models (\lozenge p\wedge \neg p)> \neg (p>\neg p )\) Logical Implication, (vii)
ix. \(\models \neg (\lozenge p\wedge \neg p)\) Logical Ad Falsum, (iv), (viii)
x. \(\models \lozenge p \supset p\) PC, (ix)
xi. \(\models \Box \lozenge p \supset \Box p\) K, (x)
xii. \(\models \lozenge p\supset \Box \lozenge p\) 5
xiii. \(\models \lozenge p \supset \Box p\) PC, (xi), (xii)
xiv. \(\lozenge p \models \Box p\) Deduction Theorem, (xiii)

1.3 A.3 Third Proof: Nothing Added

For arbitrary p:

i. \(\models \Box (\neg (\neg p \wedge p))\supset {((\neg p \wedge p)>\neg p)}\) Conditional Quodlibet
ii. \( \Box \neg (\neg p \wedge p)\models {(\neg p \wedge p)>\neg p}\) Deduction Theorem, (i)
iii.. ⊧(¬p ∧ p) > ¬p K, (ii)
iv. ⊧¬p > (p > ¬p) Import-Export, (iii)
v. \(\models \lozenge p \supset \neg (p>\neg p )\) Restricted Aristotle’s Thesis, PC, K
vi \(\models \Box (\lozenge p \supset \neg (p>\neg p ))\) K, (v)
vii. \(\models \Box \lozenge p \supset \Box \neg (p>\neg p )\) K, (vi)
viii. \(\models \lozenge p\supset \Box \lozenge p\) 5
ix. \(\models \lozenge p \supset \Box \neg (p>\neg p )\) PC, (vii), (viii)
x. \(\lozenge p \models \Box \neg (p>\neg p )\) Deduction Theorem, (ix)
xi. \(\lozenge p \models \Box \neg (p>\neg p ) \supset ((p>\neg p)>(\neg p>p))\)
Conditional Quodlibet
xii. \(\lozenge p \models {(p>\neg p)>(\neg p>p)}\) PC, (x), (xi)
xiii. \(\lozenge p \models {((p>\neg p)\wedge \neg p)>p}\) (xii), Import-Export
xiv. \(\lozenge p \models {(\neg p \wedge (p>\neg p))>p}\) (xiii), PC
xv. \(\lozenge p \models {\neg p > ((p>\neg p)>p)}\) (xiv), Import-Export
xvi. \(\lozenge p \models (\neg p > ((p>\neg p)>p)) \equiv ({\neg p> p})\) (iv), Nothing Added
xvii. \(\lozenge p \models {\neg p> p}\) (xv), (xvi), PC
xviii. \(\lozenge p \models \Box p\) Restricted Aristotle’s Thesis, (xvii), PC

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mandelkern, M., Rothschild, D. Roads to Necessitarianism. J Philos Logic 50, 89–96 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-020-09562-9

Download citation

Received: 12 August 2019
Accepted: 13 May 2020
Published: 16 June 2020
Issue Date: February 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-020-09562-9

Keywords

Logic of conditionals
Triviality results

Use our pre-submission checklist

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Abstract

References

Acknowledgments

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 A.1 First Proof: Right Monotonicity

1.2 A.2 Second Proof: Logical Implication and Logical Ad Falsum

1.3 A.3 Third Proof: Nothing Added

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Share this article

Keywords

Search

Navigation