2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2012.01454.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Safety and the True–True Problem

Abstract: Standard accounts of semantics for counterfactuals confront the true–true problem: when the antecedent and consequent of a counterfactual are both actually true, the counterfactual is automatically true. This problem presents a challenge to safety‐based accounts of knowledge. In this paper, drawing on work by Angelika Kratzer, Alan Penczek, and Duncan Pritchard, we propose a revised understanding of semantics for counterfactuals utilizing machinery from generalized quantifier theory which enables safety theori… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Bennett (, p. 387) claims that this manoeuvre is ineffective since no world can be as similar to w as w itself is. Cogburn and Roland (, p. 252), McGlynn (, p. 277), and Penczek (, pp. 80–81) agree.…”
Section: Weak Centringmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Bennett (, p. 387) claims that this manoeuvre is ineffective since no world can be as similar to w as w itself is. Cogburn and Roland (, p. 252), McGlynn (, p. 277), and Penczek (, pp. 80–81) agree.…”
Section: Weak Centringmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…McGlynn () seeks to modify Penczek's semantics in order to avoid the counterexamples from semifactuals discussed above. Cogburn and Roland (, p. 264 n11) ‘suspect that such a modification would be ad hoc’, but there is an obvious, principled amendment to Penczek's semantics which allows for the truth of irrelevant semifactuals without Conjunction Conditionalization.…”
Section: Mcglynnmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This has been seen by many as a defect in the standard account (Bennett 1974, Fine 1975, Kvart 1994, and McDermott 2007, and has led some (Bennett 2003, Bigelow 1976, Cogburn and Roland 2013, Gundersen 2004, McGlynn 2012, Nozick 1981, and Penczek 1997 to modify the Stalnaker-Lewis semantics.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%