Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front. Philos. China    2015, Vol. 10 Issue (4) : 668-682    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-004-015-0052-2
Research Article |
Counterfactuals and Context-Sensitivity
SU Ching Hui()
School of Philosophy and Social Development, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China
 Download: PDF(260 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

It is commonly agreed that when evaluating the validity of an argument involving context-sensitive expressions, the context should be held fixed. In their 2008 essay “Counterfactuals and Context,” Brogaard and Salerno argue further that context should be held fixed when evaluating an argument involving counterfactuals for validity, since, as many will agree, counterfactuals are context-sensitive. In the present paper, it will however be argued that Brogaard and Salerno fail to distinguish between two different roles that context plays in determining the meaning of a given counterfactual. If they were fully aware of the distinction between these two roles played by context, they might propose a contextualist approach to counterfactuals, as has been developed by Ichikawa in his 2011 paper “Quantifiers, Knowledge, and Counterfactuals.”

Keywords counterfactuals      context      B. Brogaard      J. Salerno      R. Stalnaker      J. Ichikawa     
Issue Date: 26 January 2016
 Cite this article:   
SU Ching Hui. Counterfactuals and Context-Sensitivity[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 668-682.
 URL:  
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-004-015-0052-2
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2015/V10/I4/668
[1] Thalia Wheatley, Terence Horgan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Mental Causation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 349-360.
[2] XU Yingjin. What Can Artificial Intelligence Learn from Wittgenstein’s On Certainty?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(3): 441-462.
[3] LIU Xin. The Implication of Rawls’ Approach to Public Reason[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(1): 161-169.
[4] GUO Guichun. The Boundaries of Context and Their Significance[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2010, 5(3): 449-460.
[5] WAN Junren. Ethics and ethicists in the modern context[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2009, 4(2): 227-237.
[6] GUO Guichun. The methodological signifi cance of scientific metaphor[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(3): 437-453.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed