Three Twentieth-century Commonplaces about 'If'

History and Philosophy of Logic 22 (3):119-127 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The commonplaces, all grammatically confused, are that ?conditionals? are ternary in structure, have ?antecedents? and conform to the traditional taxonomy. It is maintained en route that ?The bough will not break? is consistent with ?If the bough breaks ??, that there is no logical difference between ?future indicatives? and ?subjunctives?, and that there is a difference between the logic of propositions (e.g. ?The bough broke?) and that of judgments (?The bough will/might/could/should/must/needn't break?)



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,991

External links

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

Through your library


Added to PP

65 (#255,537)

6 months
12 (#243,520)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

On conditionals.Dorothy Edgington - 1995 - Mind 104 (414):235-329.
The logic of conditionals.Ernest Adams - 1965 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 8 (1-4):166 – 197.
The Logic of Conditionals.Ernest Adams, Ernest W. Adams, Jaakko Hintikka & Patrick Suppes - 1965 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 39 (3):609-611.
Conditionals.Frank Jackson - 1992 - Philosophical Quarterly 42 (167):266.
Subjunctive and Indicative Conditionals.Ernest W. Adams - 1970 - Foundations of Language 6 (1):89-94.

View all 17 references / Add more references