Partition and revision: The semantics of counterfactuals
暂无分享,去创建一个
ConclusionThe last section made it clear that an analysis which at first seems to fail is viable after all. It is viable if we let it depend on a partition function to be provided by the context of conversation. This analysis leaves certain traits of the partition function open. I have tried to show that this should be so. Specifying these traits as Pollock does leads to wrong predictions. And leaving them open endows counterfactuals with just the right amount of variability and vagueness.
[1] David Lewis,et al. Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals , 1981, J. Philos. Log..
[2] N. Rescher,et al. The coherence theory of truth , 1973 .
[3] Angelika Kratzer,et al. What ‘must’ and ‘can’ must and can mean , 1977 .
[4] John P. Burgess,et al. Quick completeness proofs for some logics of conditionals , 1981, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..