ON THE LOGIC OF CONDITIONALS

• Conditionals
o If-then statements
o Antecedent (A) and consequent (B)
o Structure of universal laws
• Models of explanation
o Causal mechanical explanation
§ Explanation in terms of causes or mechanism
§ Illustrate the mechanism behind it
§ Mechanism as embodied in general or universal laws
o Unitary
§ Laws and principles are unified
§ What science should provide us with is a unified picture of the world
• Regardless of the model used, they all involved universal laws that contain conditional forms
• Counterfactuals
o Contrary to fact conditionals
o If-then
o Antecedent is contrary to fact
§ Is false
§ AàB
• Value of A is always false
o Associated with subjunctive conditionals
§ A tense in grammar
§ Antecedent is false
§ If things were like this
§ If things were contrary or different from the way they are
o If the antecedent is false, then the value of the entire conditional is true
§ Truth function: the value of the entire thing depends on the value of its components
o Regardless of the truth value of B, the outcome will be true, if the antecedent is false
§ All counterfactuals are true because any conditional that contains a false antecedent is a true conditional
o The conditional is false only when the A is true and B is false (material conditional)
§ Truth functional conditional
§ The kind of relationship demonstrated is a material implication
• A materially implies B
• Too weak
o You can take any true antecedent and any true consequent and say then say that the
entire conditional is true even though the statements involved may not have any
connection at all
§ Ex. If Columbus discovered America, then grass is green.
§ Both statements are true, therefore they generate a true conditional
• Contradicts our intuition
§ Because logic is 2-valued
• We can accept only 2 possible values: true and false, and nothing in between
§ Way to falsify a conditional
• Falsification of scientific theories
§ Demonstrates the demarcation between science and non-science
o Structure of universal law: (x) (Px à Qx)
§ Ex. All – if subject – then predicate
• Scientific laws are generalizations based on experiences
• A à B; A à ~B
o Contradictory pair
o Compatible if they are counterfactuals
§ Regardless of the truth value of B, if the antecedent is false, then the entire conditional is true
§ Would not express any contradictions
• Problem: logical analysis of counterfactuals is inadequate/incomplete because it tells us that all counterfactuals are true.
Even if you try to come up with contrary statements, they are nevertheless compatible.
• Counterpositives of this formula
 o ~B à ~A
§ Hempel’s paradox
• All swans are white.
• All non-white things are not swans.
o B à ~A
§ If I strike the match, then it will light.
§ If it didn’t light, then it means I did not strike it.
• There seems to be something wrong
o This kind of analysis is questioned
o Is it proper to analyze these counterfactuals in terms of the material conditional?
• What is the best way of dealing with counterfactuals?
• Alternative to material implication: strict implication
o A stronger relation
o Straight implication; fish hook
o Modal notion
§ From the modalities of truth
o What kind of truth is expressed?
§ Material conditional: contingent truth
§ Straight implication: truth becomes necessary
o Can be the distinction between an accidental generalization and a true scientific generalization
§ Difference between a mere correlation and causation
• Correlation can be contingent or accidental
o If things were different
• Causation: it could not be otherwise
• The logic of conditionals is important because it can be the key to identifying when a generalization is a universal law or a
causal law as opposed to mere correlation
o Ideal: causal laws
• Causal law: embodied in a straight implication
• Problem with straight implication: it is made intelligible in terms of possible worlds
o Part of possible worlds semantics
o In order to make sense of straight implication, we resort to possible worlds
o How things could be or could have been
o Subjunctive conditionals or counterfactuals
o One view regarding causal/scientific laws: laws that support counterfactuals
§ Generalizations/accidental laws don’t.
o General laws, universal laws, causal laws: would obtain even if things were set up differently
§ If the circumstances were different, the effect would also be different when it comes to correlations
• Example:
o All solid spherical masses made of pure plutonium weigh less than 100,000 kg.
§ Universal law
• This is the way things work
§ Pure plutonium is unstable and will explode once it reaches a certain mass
§ You cannot have a pure plutonium that weighs more than 100,000 kg
• Before it reaches that, it will explode
§ This will support a counterfactual
o All solid spherical masses made of pure gold weigh less than 100,000 kg.
§ True only contingently
§ We don’t have enough gold to form that large a mass. We may be able to discover a deposit then we
would be able to come up with a counterexample
§ Implication is only due to the circumstances
o Both statements are true
• Whether it can be made consistent with counterfactuals
o Does it support counterfactual?
• In case of a causal law, even though the evidence is not complete or exhaustive, we would nevertheless accept the
generalization.
o Can still be extended to counterfactuals
• In the second case, complete enumeration might be required. We have to consider each and every case.
o If something does not fall to under this particular case, we would not want to apply this particular generalization
 o We do not want to extend the law to cases to counterfactuals
• No need to talk about possible worlds when it comes to analyzing counterfactuals
o In possible worlds semantics, they take into consideration possible worlds and from a scientific perspective they
may be quite questionable because they contain metaphysical baggage
§ Violation of Ockham’s razor
• You should not multiply your entities
• Possible worlds – multiplication of entities
• We can still make sense of counterfactual conditionals and therefore make sense of the distinction between causal laws
and accidental generalization in terms of inductive reasoning
o Reasoning from particulars to generals
• Aristotle: 2 different types of inductive reasoning
o By virtue of enumeration
§ Kind of inductive reasoning between “All swans are white”
• By simply enumerating cases
§ Does not guarantee any connection between 2 terms
• Only correlation
§ Generalization still obtains because contrary cases has not been observed
o More intuitive
§ Some sort of deeper knowledge is required in order for somebody to be able to come up with that kind of
intuition; requires extensive background knowledge
• The observer will not arrive at a conclusion that “all swans are white” even though all the swans
he/she have encountered have been white
• The observer will notice that there is no internal connection between being a swan and being
white
• Observer has certain level of expertise such that he/she is able to see the connections between
qualities
§ Understanding the mechanisms
• Even counterfactuals are also based on other counterfactuals
o For you to accept a law as being a universal one, you have to rely on background knowledge that are also support
counterfactuals
o In justifying counterfactual conditionals, you need other counterfactual conditionals
o No single counterfactual stands alone
§ Always comes along with other similar theories or counterfactuals
o Our attempts at coming up with theories are unitary
§ Theory must be compatible with other theories
• A theory can never stand alone
• Inductive reasoning – mechanical form of reasoning
o We should be able to come up with inductive inferences in the same way that we are able to draw lines in
geometry using rulers and compass
• What we are trying to do in science is to come up with a unitary explanation in terms of causal or mechanical laws
o Be able to combine together all the laws so no single theory stands alone
• A simple induction can be used to distinction between a causal law and a mere correlation
• An answer to the problem of demarcation: what is scientific and what is not
• Distinction between essences and accidents
o What kind of connection exists among terms – accidental or essential?
§ Scientific laws require essential connections