Skip to main content
Log in

Bivalence and subjunctive conditionals

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Writers such as Stalnaker and Dummett have argued that specific features of subjunctive conditional statements undermine the principle of bivalence. This, paper is concerned with rebutting such claims. 1. It is shown how subjective conditionals pose a prima facie threat to bivalence, and how this threat can be dissolved by a distinction between the results of negating a subjective conditional and of negating its consequent. To make this distinction is to side with Lewis against Stalnaker in a dispute about possible worlds semantics for such conditionals, and reasons are given for doing so. 2. These arguments are extended to answer Dummett's claim that behaviourist and phenomenalist analyses in terms of subjunctive conditions violate bivalence. This answer is shown to be compatible with the principle that hypothetical statements are true only in virtue of categorical facts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Dummett, M. A. E.: 1959, ‘Truth’, reprinted in Dummett (1978).

  • Dummett, M. A. E.: 1963, ‘Realism’, in Dummett (1978).

  • Dummett, M. A. E.: 1973, ‘The Philosophical Basis of Intuitionistic Logic’, reprinted in Dummett (1978).

  • Dummett, M. A. E.: 1977,Elements of Intuitionism, University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M. A. E.: 1978,Truth and Other Enigmas, Duckworth, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M. A. E.: 1982, ‘Realism’,Synthese 52, 55–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P.: 1981, ‘An Epistemic Approach to Conditionals’,American Philosophical Quarterly 18, 203–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P.: 1984, ‘Epistemic Importance and Minimal Changes of Belief’,Australosian Journal of Philosophy 62, 136–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, N.: 1946, ‘The Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals’, inFact, Fiction and Forecast (3rd ed.), Harvester, Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. K.: 1973,Counterfactuals, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, D. H.: 1974, ‘In Defence of Dispositions’,Philosophical Review 83, 157–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peacocke, C. A. B.: 1980, ‘Causal Modalities and Realism’, in M. de B. Platts (ed.),Reference, Truth and Reality, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O.: 1952,Methods of Logic, Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. C.: 1968, ‘A Theory of Conditionals’, reprinted in E. Sosa (ed.),Causation and Conditionals, University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. C.: 1981, ‘A Defence of Conditional Excluded Middle’, in W. L. Harper, R. Stalnaker and G. Pearce (eds.),Ifs: Conditionals, Belief, Decision, Chance and Time, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker, R. C.: 1984,Inquiry, MIT, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B. C.: 1974, ‘Hidden Variables in Conditional Logic’,Theoria 40, 176–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, C. J. G.: 1981, ‘Dummett and Revisionism’,Philosophical Quarterly 31, 47–67.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Williamson, T. Bivalence and subjunctive conditionals. Synthese 75, 405–421 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869407

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869407

Keywords

Navigation