David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Quarterly 48 (190):88-95 (1998)
V.H. Dudman has argued that a better semantic account of the conditional emerges from placing grammar ‘in the driver's seat’. His account of their grammar identifies two main categories, which differ from those postulated by traditional theorists, and which he claims correspond to two very different and deep‐rooted styles of thought. I show that it is unlikely that a perfect match exists between styles of thought and grammatical categories in the way that Dudman postulates. I consider arguments by Dale and Edgington in this context. More importantly, however, I also show that even if there were a perfect match, Dudman's account would still obscure semantic similarities between ‘if’‐sentences which are arguably of greater importance than the ones he highlights. This, I suggest, has implications extending far beyond Dudman's work
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
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
Jonathan Bennett (1988). Farewell to the Phlogiston Theory of Conditionals. Mind 97 (388):509-527.
A. J. Dale (1985). Is the Future Unreasonable? Analysis 45 (4):179 - 183.
V. H. Dudman (1986). Antecedents and Consequents. Theoria 52 (3):168-199.
V. H. Dudman (1990). Grammar, Semantics and Conditionals. Analysis 50 (4):214 - 224.
V. H. Dudman (1991). Jackson Classifying Conditionals. Analysis 51 (3):131 - 136.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Richard E. Hart (2005). Moral Experience in Of Mice and Men. In Stephen K. George (ed.), The Moral Philosophy of John Steinbeck. Scarecrow Press.
Camilla Flodin (2011). Of Mice and Men: Adorno on Art and the Suffering of Animals. Estetika 48 (2):139-156.
James R. Griesemer & Elihu M. Gerson (2006). Of Mice and Men and Low Unit Cost. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 37 (2):363-372.
Holger Schultheis & Harald Lachnit (2009). Of Mice and Men: Revisiting the Relation of Nonhuman and Human Learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (2):224-225.
Cynthia B. Cohen (2003). Creating Human-Nonhuman Chimeras: Of Mice and Men. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (3):3 – 5.
T. L. S. Sprigge (1986). Of Mice, Models and Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research. Environmental Ethics 8 (1):83-87.
Mark Glouberman (2008). Of Mice and Men: God and the Canadian Supreme Court. Ratio Juris 21 (1):107-124.
Bernard E. Rollin (2007). Of Mice and Men. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (5):55 – 57.
Roger Caldwell (2003). Of Men and Mice. Philosophy Now 42:34-34.
Peter Vallentyne (2005). Of Mice and Men: Equality and Animals. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):403 - 433.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #207,977 of 1,102,450 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #121,593 of 1,102,450 )
How can I increase my downloads?