It is argued that the so-called principles of "strong centering" and "weak centering" central to the traditional Lewis-Stalnaker semantics for counterfactuals are both fallacious. A foundation for an alternative semantics without these prinsciples is outlined. The core idea is that the statistically normal worlds -rather than those worlds most qualitatively similar to the actual world -should serve as the semantical fulcrum.

In The Philosophical Quarterly, 48 (1998), Alexander Bird raises an objection against the conditional analysis of dispositions: where an ‘antidote’ is present all the supposed conditions for manifestation of a disposition are fulfilled but the manifestation does not occur. But Bird’s argument suffers from equivocation. If we spell out properly whether the disposition's conditions are to include the presence of the antidote or not, the apparent counter‐examples disappear. So his examples do not undermine the conditional analysis of dispositions; they show merely that we need to be careful about describing the examples consistently.

Are counterfactuals with true antecedents and consequents trivially true? The principle of Conjunction Conditionalization ((A∧C)→(A>C)) is highly controversial. Many philosophers view it as an attractive feature of Lewis's semantics for counterfactuals that it can easily be modified to avoid this principle. However, Walters and Williams (2013) beg to differ. They argue that Conjunction Conditionalization is an indispensable ingredient of any Lewisian semantics, since CC is entailed by standard Lewisian theorems and a plausible semantic claim about irrelevant semifactuals. If this is true, the entire tradition of revisionist counterfactual semantics is misguided, and so are many philosophical theories in which counterfactuals play a role. We argue, in defense of the revisionist tradition, that Walters and Williams' ‘plausible semantic claim’ is in fact anything but plausible. It turns out to entail semantic principles far more controversial than Conjunction Conditionalization.

No abstract

No abstract