'If 2 = 3, then 2 + 1 = 3 + 1': Reply to heylen and Horsten

Philosophical Quarterly 58 (232):528-531 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Jan Heylen and Leon Horsten object to my proposed analysis of ordinary-language conditionals by appealing to certain putative counter-examples. In this reply, I explain how, by ignoring my reading of the indicative/subjunctive distinction, their objection misses its target. I also criticize their underlying methodology.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,069

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
50 (#327,050)

6 months
5 (#711,233)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

E. J. Lowe
PhD: Oxford University; Last affiliation: Durham University

Citations of this work

Strict conditionals.Jan Heylen & Leon Horsten - 2022 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 22 (64):123-131.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The truth about counterfactuals.E. J. Lowe - 1995 - Philosophical Quarterly 45 (178):41-59.
Who was dr who's father?Murray Macbeath - 1982 - Synthese 51 (3):397 - 430.
Strict conditionals: A negative result.Jan Heylen & Leon Horsten - 2006 - Philosophical Quarterly 56 (225):536–549.

Add more references