Untitled

Gundersen, Lars

doi:10.1023/a:1014845625688

Cited by 50 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of course, the possibility of finkish dispositions is not an uncontroversial matter and various moves have been made to defend a conditional analysis of dispositions (e.g., Lewis 1997 andGundersen 2002). Similar moves may be made against the possibility of finkish conditional powers although space constraints prevent me from evaluating them here.…”

Section: Finkish Conditional Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subset Realization and the Entailment Problem in advance

Christensen

2023

Thought: A Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the principle of conditional power aggregation (CPA), conditional powers conjoin when the properties that bestow them conjoin. Sophie Gibb has argued that CPA is false given Shoemaker’s account of conditional powers and that this leads to a problem for his account of subset realization. In short: If CPA is rejected, subset realization fails to be an entailment relation, in which case it cannot provide a basis for non-reductive physicalism. I defend the subset account against this argument by denying that CPA fails. I argue that (i) Shoemaker’s account of conditional powers does not warrant a rejection of CPA, (ii) his account is incomplete and should be supplemented with a further sufficient condition for when a property bestows a conditional power, and (iii) this further sufficient condition supports CPA.

show abstract

Section: Finkish Conditional Powersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subset Realization and the Entailment Problem in advance

Christensen

2023

Thought: A Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Let's call this response the Idealisation Response. Versions of the Idealization Response have been recently defended by Choi (2006) and Gundersen (2002).…”

Section: Four Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrinsic Finks, Masks, and Mimics

Everett

2009

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I argue for the existence of intrinsic Finks, Masks, and Mimics, and argue that these undermine certain recent attempts to revive simple conditional analyses of dispositions. I present some examples of intrinsic Finks, Masks, and Mimics, and argue that the example of an intrinsic fink I present has certain advantages over the examples of intrinsic finks recently suggested by Randolph Clarke. I conclude that the existence of such Finks, Masks, and Mimics, undermine a recent attempt by Sungho Choi to distinguish dispositional properties from categorical properties.

show abstract

Conjunction Conditionalization and Irrelevant Semifactuals

Gundersen

2018

Thought: A Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 50 publications

References 0 publications

Subset Realization and the Entailment Problem in advance

Subset Realization and the Entailment Problem in advance

Intrinsic Finks, Masks, and Mimics

Conjunction Conditionalization and Irrelevant Semifactuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About