Dispositions and Bogus Counterexamples: Reply to Lee [Book Review]

Philosophia 38 (3):579-588 (2010)
Abstract
This paper discusses Lee’s argument that Lewis’s reformed conditional analysis of dispositions is preferable to the simple conditional analysis of dispositions. Lee’s argument is basically that there are some examples that can be adequately handled by Lewis’s analysis but cannot by the simple conditional analysis of dispositions. But I will reveal that, when carefully understood, they spell no trouble for the simple conditional analysis of dispositions, failing to serve a motivating role for Lewis’s analysis
Keywords Dispositions  Conditional analysis  Causation  Counterfactual conditionals  Jeaho Lee  Sungho Choi  David Lewis
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,456
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Sungho Choi (2005). Dispositions and Mimickers. Philosophical Studies 122 (2):183 - 188.

View all 10 references

Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-06-30

Total downloads

58 ( #27,516 of 1,102,449 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

4 ( #85,420 of 1,102,449 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.