File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1080/00048402.2021.1886129
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85102824016
- WOS: WOS:000629293400001
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Counterfactual Contamination
Title | Counterfactual Contamination |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | counterfactuals knowledge safety |
Issue Date | 2022 |
Citation | Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2022, v. 100, n. 2, p. 262-278 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Many defend the thesis that when someone knows p, they couldn’t easily have been wrong about p. But the notion of easy possibility in play is relatively under-theorized. One structural idea in the literature, the principle of Counterfactual Closure (CC), connects easy possibility with counterfactuals: if it easily could have happened that p, and if p were the case then q would be the case, then it follows that it easily could have happened that q. We first argue that, while CC is false, there is a true restriction of it to cases involving counterfactual dependence on a coin flip. The failure of CC falsifies a model where the easy possibilities are counterfactually similar to actuality. Next, we show that extant normality models, where the easy possibilities are the sufficiently normal ones, are incompatible with the restricted CC thesis involving coin flips. Next, we develop a new kind of normality theory that can accommodate the restricted version of CC. This new theory introduces a principle of Counterfactual Contamination, which says, roughly, that any world is fairly abnormal if at that world very abnormal events counterfactually depend on a coin flip. Finally, we explain why coin flips and other related events have a special status. A central take-home lesson is that the correct principle in the vicinity of Safety is importantly normality-theoretic rather than (as it is usually conceived) similarity-theoretic. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/336270 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.0 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.302 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Goldstein, Simon | - |
dc.contributor.author | Hawthorne, John | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-01-15T08:25:04Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-01-15T08:25:04Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2022 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2022, v. 100, n. 2, p. 262-278 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0004-8402 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/336270 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Many defend the thesis that when someone knows p, they couldn’t easily have been wrong about p. But the notion of easy possibility in play is relatively under-theorized. One structural idea in the literature, the principle of Counterfactual Closure (CC), connects easy possibility with counterfactuals: if it easily could have happened that p, and if p were the case then q would be the case, then it follows that it easily could have happened that q. We first argue that, while CC is false, there is a true restriction of it to cases involving counterfactual dependence on a coin flip. The failure of CC falsifies a model where the easy possibilities are counterfactually similar to actuality. Next, we show that extant normality models, where the easy possibilities are the sufficiently normal ones, are incompatible with the restricted CC thesis involving coin flips. Next, we develop a new kind of normality theory that can accommodate the restricted version of CC. This new theory introduces a principle of Counterfactual Contamination, which says, roughly, that any world is fairly abnormal if at that world very abnormal events counterfactually depend on a coin flip. Finally, we explain why coin flips and other related events have a special status. A central take-home lesson is that the correct principle in the vicinity of Safety is importantly normality-theoretic rather than (as it is usually conceived) similarity-theoretic. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Australasian Journal of Philosophy | - |
dc.subject | counterfactuals | - |
dc.subject | knowledge | - |
dc.subject | safety | - |
dc.title | Counterfactual Contamination | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/00048402.2021.1886129 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85102824016 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 100 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 262 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 278 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000629293400001 | - |