THE INEXTRICABLE LINK BETWEEN CONDITIONALS AND LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE Draft of July 29, 2020 Matheus Silva ABSTRACT There is a profound, but frequently ignored, relationship between the classical conception of logical consequence and material implication. The first repeats the patterns of the latter, but with a wider modal reach. This relationship suggests that there should be also a connection between the notion of logical consequence and the conditional connective of any given logical system. This implies that it is incoherent to propose alternatives to the material implication while maintaining the classical conception of logical consequence. The other important implication is that we need to posit different conceptions of logical consequence that are consistent with different theories of conditionals in order to evaluate their relative merits from new and unexplored angles. As a pilot study of this research program we evaluate two new notions of logical consequence motivated by conditional-assertion theory and possible world theories. Those alternatives are compared unfavourably with the classical conception of logical consequence. 1. INTRODUCTION Intuitively, conditional statements express some sort of deductive reasoning, but the precise nature of this relation is controversial. It seems obvious that if p entails q, then p → q is 1 necessarily true, and vice versa. This relation, however, does not hold in most cases, since most true conditionals are not necessarily true. Yet there is another connection that was ignored: the connection between the classical conception of logical consequence and the material implication . This connection implies that it is incoherent to propose alternatives to 2 the material implication while maintaining the classical conception of logical consequence. 3 The other important implication is that we need to posit different conceptions of logical consequence that are consistent with different theories of conditionals in order to evaluate their relative merits from new and unexplored angles. This paper will be short and to the point. A survey of the relevant examples that suggest the connection between the classical I will adopt the notation where '→' stands for natural language conditionals and '⊃' stands for material 1 implication. I will use capital letters such as A, B, C for both propositional and formula variables. The term 'material implication' fell into disuse because of Quine's accusation that it involves a use-mention 2 fallacy. I disagree with his assessment. See my 'If-then' as a version of 'Implies' (unpublished) for a detailed rebuttal of Quine's argument. It is important to make a distinction between the material implication as a formal connective of classical logic, 3 the material relation that it satisfies when it is true and natural language expressions that carry an implicit claim to a material implication. When one maintains that natural language conditionals can be interpreted as being logically equivalent to a material implication, what it is meant is that they satisfy the truth conditions posited by the truth table of the material implication, and not that their implicit claim to a relation material implication is true, otherwise every material implication in natural language would be by definition true, which is implausible. !1 conception of logical consequence and material implication is presented in section 2. The alternative notions of logical consequence motivated by conditional-assertion and possible world theories are discussed in section 3. Those notions turn out to be equivalent due to a commitment with the Ramsey's test and are ultimately deemed unsatisfactory. The section 4 concludes with a brief observation about the potential advantages of an implication approach in our understanding of conditionals. 2. A BRIDGE BETWEEN TWO WORLDS The material implication A ⊃ B amounts to a claim that a premise A materially implies a conclusion B if, and only if, it is not the case that both A is true and B is false in a given world that is assumed as a parameter. This reference to a parameter world is justified by the fact that when we evaluate arguments that contain a material implication in the premise, we consider all the possible worlds in which the premise is true. The set of those possible worlds might include the actual world, but don't need to be restricted by it . The mention of a premise and 4 a conclusion instead of the traditional notions of antecedent and consequent is also intentional: since we are talking about interpreting conditionals as a material implication, and since this is an implication relation in some special sense, the antecedent and consequence of a conditional should be interpreted as a premise and a conclusion, respectively. That aforementioned connection between the classical conception of logical consequence and material implication occurs because the unrestricted relation of logical consequence (the formal implication ), repeats the patterns of a restricted relation of logical consequence (the 5 material implication). The only difference between the two is that in the first case the relation of implication has a wider modal reach, so to speak. If the relation of A materially implying B is valid when A is false or B is true, then the relation of A formally implying B is valid when A is a contradiction or B is a tautology. In other words, the validity of formal implication will depend on how we interpret the validity of material implication, and vice versa. See the table bellow. Antecedent Strengthening Left Weakening (Monotonicity) A ⊃ B ⊨ (A&C) ⊃ B if A ⊨ B, then A&C ⊨ B Exportation Deduction Theorem (A&B) ⊃ C ⊨ A ⊃ (B ⊃ C) if A&B ⊨ C, then A ⊨ B ⊃ C Hypothetical Syllogism Transitivity of Entailment A ⊃ B, B ⊃ C ⊨ A ⊃ C if A ⊨ B and B ⊨ C, then A ⊨ C Another reason is that possible world theories always redirect us to the closest A-world to evaluate the truth 4 value of a conditional, but in this A-world the relation of implication between A and B is also material. In order to make sense of the classical use of material implication and differentiate it from its use in possible world theories, we observe that in the second, but not in the first, the parameter world is always the closest one where A is true. In order to make sense of the classical use of material implication and differentiate it from its use in possible world theories, we observe that in the second, but not in the first, the parameter world is always the closest one where A is true. For the sake of simplicity, I will use 'formal implication' as synonymous with 'the validity of an argumentative 5 form', 'unrestricted relation of logical consequence' and 'arguments in natural language that carry an implicit claim to formal implication'. The context will make it clear in which sense the term is being used. This term is useful because it helps to emphasise the contrasts and similarities with material implication. It is also briefer than the long-winded 'unrestricted relation of logical consequence'. !2 Material and formal implication also have in common the fact that they are antisymmetric: from A ⊃ B it doesn't follow B ⊃ A, and from A ⊨ B it doesn't follow B ⊨ A; and they are both reflexive, since A ⊃ A and A ⊨ A are both valid. There are two degrees of implication here. In first degree we have the relation of material implication, which is bounded or restricted by a given world taken as a parameter. In the second degree we have a relation of formal implication which ensures that in every possible world in which their premises are true, their truth is preserved. In this case, the relation of implication may involve relations of material implication in the premises or conclusion, or both; or relations of formal implication themselves, which may involve relations of material implication or not. The important thing is that the same pattern of implication presented in first degree is repeated in the second degree. Take for instance the relation between transitivity of entailment and hypothetical syllogism. The first states that if A formally implies B, and B formally implies C, then this formally implies that A formally implies C; while the later states that if A materially implies B, and B materially implies C, then this formally implies that A materially implies C. This means that hypothetical syllogism can be considered as a restricted form of transitivity of the material implication. Another example is the relation between antecedent strengthening and left weakening. The first states that if A materially implies B this formally implies that the conjunction of A and C materially implies B; whereas the second states that if A formally implies B, this formally implies that the conjunction of A and C formally implies B. Now consider the examples presented in the table bellow. Conditional Negation Condition Negation Proof A ⊃ B ⇆ ¬(A&¬B) A ⊨ B ⇆ ¬◇(A&¬B) Conditional Antisyllogism Principle of Antisyllogism (A&B) ⊃ C ⊨ (A&¬C) ⊃ ¬B if A&B ⊨ C, then A&¬C ⊨ ¬B Contraposition Contraposition Proof A ⊃ B ⇆ ¬B ⊃ ¬A A ⊨ B ⇆ ¬B ⊨ ¬A Or-to-If General Or-to-If A ⊃ B ⇆ ¬A∨B A ⊨ B ⇆ ⧠(¬A∨B) Disjunction Principle General Disjunction Principle (A&B) ⊃ C ⇆ A ⊃ (¬B∨C) A&B ⊨ C ⇆ A ⊨ ¬B∨C Antecedent Disjunction Introduction Antecedent Disjunction Introduction Proof ((A ⊃ B)&(C ⊃ B)) ⊨ ((A∨C) ⊃ B) if A ⊨ B and C ⊨ B, then (A∨C) ⊨ B Conjunctive Syllogism Conditional Conjunctive Syllogism (¬(A&B) & A) ⊃ ¬B ¬(A&B) & A ⊨ ¬B Limited Transitivity Limited Transitivity Proof A ⊃ B, (A&B) ⊃ C ⊨ A ⊃ C if A ⊨ B and (A&B) ⊨ C, then A ⊨ C !3 First Paradox of Material Implication Ex Contradictione Quodlibet ¬A ⊨ A ⊃ B A&¬A, then A&¬A ⊨ B Second Paradox of Material Implication Trivial Validity B ⊨ A ⊃ B B∨¬B, then A ⊨ B∨¬B In the case of the first paradox, a material implication trivially holds because the antecedent is false in the world parameter, and in the ex contradictione quodlibet, a formal implication trivially holds because the antecedent is false in every possible world. In the second paradox, the material implication trivially holds because the consequent is true in the parameter world, whereas in the trivial validity the formal implication trivially holds because the conclusion is true in every possible world. In both examples the relations of formal implication mirror the behaviour of material implication, with the exception that the first covers all possible worlds while the later is restricted to a given parameter world. The connection between (FPM) and (ECQ) can also be explained as follows: the conditional 'If A, then B' is synonymous with 'if A is true, then B is true'. Now suppose that A is false, and the truth of A is incompatible with the truth of B. Because of the incompatibility I decide to abandon the conditional and ignore that A is false. But this would amount to accept that the following conditional is false: 'if A is true and false, then B is true'. So the denial of (FPM) would amount to the denial of (ECQ). The connection between (FPM) and (ECQ) can also be explained as follows: when A → B is asserted under the assumption of ¬A, what is actually being asserted is (¬A&A) → B, which should be interpreted as saying that any consequent is materially implied by the conjunction of two inconsistent antecedents . 6 We can also explain this as follows: from (FPM) we have ¬A → (A → B), which by importation amounts to (¬A&A) → B. Thinking in similar lines shows that (SPM) is also connected with conjunction elimination. If a material implication it is motivated by a true consequent, then it has the truth of this consequent implicit in its antecedent. The assertion of A → B under the assumption of q should be interpreted as B → (A → B), which by importation leads us to (B&A) → B, which means that a consequent is materially implied by its combination with its antecedent . So now 7 we can't deny (SPM) without denying conjunction elimination either. The relation between (SPM) and (TV) can established as follows: 1. B → (A → B) inferential justification 2. (A&B) → B 1, importation 3. ¬(A&B) ∨ B 2, or-to-if 4. (¬A∨¬B) ∨ B 3, & 5. ¬A∨(¬B ∨ B) 4, associativity 6. A → (¬B ∨ B) 5, or-to-if This means that denying that 'if A and B are true, then B is true' leads to the negation of 'if A is true, then B is true or false'. Formal implication and material implication are tied in such a fundamental manner that our intuitions, arguments and hypotheses about the former should be translated in intuitions, arguments and hypotheses about the later. This relation represents a bridge between formal implication and material implication, and consequently, conditionals. This connection is of the most importance because conditional logic experts tend to be very critical of the material implication while simultaneously accepting the classical notion of formal implication. They will be inclined to accept argumentative forms such as ex contradictione and trivial validity at Russell (1970: 136).6 Ceniza (1988: 511).7 !4 the same time they reject the first and the second paradox of material implication. This differential treatment probably occurs because the classical notion of formal implication is fairly simple and intuitive, whereas the material implication is still poorly understood given its close ties to natural language and it is susceptible to a wide variety of biases that muddle 8 our perception of the issue and clouds our understanding . 9 3. ALTERNATIVE NOTIONS OF LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE According to possible world theories, A → B is true iff either B is true in the closest A-world, or A is impossible. If B is false in the closest A-world, the conditional is false . David Lewis 10 (1973) offers a distinct version inspired by the same idea. The difference in this case is that A → B is true if, and only if, in every possible A-world that is as closest to the actual world as the truth of A allows, B is true. There are many other possible worlds semantics inspired on the same idea . In any case, our core objection holds for any possible world semantics 11 employed, since it is directed against the pre-theoretic intuitions that motivate them. From here on I will take Stalnaker's semantics as default and refer it as vanilla possible world semantics or simply possible world account. The possible world account denies the following argumentative forms: • antecedent strengthening (AS), for B can be true in the closest A-world, but false in the closest A&C-world; • hypothetical syllogism (HS), for even if B is true in the closest A-world and C is true in the closest B-world, C can be false in the closest A-world; • contraposition (CON), because B can be true in the closest A-world while ¬A is false in the closest ¬B-world; • the first paradox of material implication (FPM), because B could be false in the closest A-world even if ¬A is true in the actual world; • the second paradox of material implication (SPM), because B could be false in the closest A-world even if B is true in the actual world. Another direction is to interpret 'if-then' constructions as both attempts to establish a material implication 8 relation and connectives. In this case, 'therefore' constructions or deductive arguments should also be viewed as both connectives and attempts to establish a formal implication. The only difference is that in the case of an argument the truth value of the sentence that says that the premises imply the conclusion is dependent of the truth values of the premises in all possible worlds in which they are true. The reason why I'm not adopting this strategy is that it is less elegant than the present interpretation that views both conditionals and 'therefore' constructions solely as claims to implication relations. Moreover, it would make things even more confusing by bringing the attempts to establish formal implication in the midst of connectives. The more insightful way we can do is to remove conditionals from the other connectives, and not add formal implication as an additional connective. For different explanations of the supposed biases see Ajdukiewicz (1956), Allott & Uchida (2009a; 2009b), 9 Clark (1971), Hanson (1991), Lewis (1976), Grice (1989), Jackson (1987, 2006), Mellor (1993), Noh (1998); Rieger (2006; 2013); Smith (1983), Smith & Smith (1988) and Silva (2017). Stalnaker (1975).10 See Davis (1979).11 !5 The consequence of this departure from material implication is the denial of the following argumentative forms: • left weakening (LW): if a relation of material implication cannot be monotonic, neither should be a relation of formal implication; • transitivity of entailment (TE): if the relations of material implication in the hypothetical syllogism are not transitive, neither are the relations of formal implication in an argumentative form; • contraposition proof (CP): if the falsity of the conclusion (i.e., the consequent) in a material implication relation does not imply the falsity of the premise (i.e., the antecedent), then the falsity of a conclusion in a formal implication does not imply the falsity of the premise; • ex contradictione quodlibet (ECQ): if a material implication does not follow trivially from a false premise (i.e., the antecedent), then a formal implication will not follow trivially from a contradictory premise; • trivial validity (TV): if a material implication does not follow trivially from a true conclusion (i.e., the consequent), then a formal implication will not follow trivially from a necessary conclusion. I'm not sure that most people would be willing to adopt such revisionist consequences based on criticisms to the material implication, but that's the price they will have to pay for the sake of coherence. There is no doubt that argumentative forms such as (LW), (TE) and (CP) represent a fundamental aspect of any believable notion of logical consequence. (ECQ) and (TV) are more controversial and the proponent of the possible world account could argue that denying (ECQ) is a consequence that should be seen as a bonus and not a hindrance. After all, we already have system of paraconsistent logics specifically crafted to deal with contradictions in a way that prevents them from implying anything. But the reason why this answer is unconvincing in this case is that the possible world account also has its own device of triviality that is reminiscent of (ECQ), namely, that A → B is true when A is impossible. This is not consistent with the type of thinking we would expect from the denial of (ECQ). Besides, it would not be a stretch to suggest that most people will accept them. One obvious reply to my criticism is that possible world theories can be modified to accommodate counterpossible conditionals and impossible worlds . Some proposal along 12 these lines would allow us to refuse both (FPM) and (ECQ). The reason why I don't consider these proposals promising is that they are too timid and half-hearted to be presented as a proper full-fledged alternative to the material implication in their own right. For example, if (FPM) and (ECQ) are abandoned, (SPM) and (TV) should be abandoned too. After all, they are also examples of trivial validity in material and formal guises. But that is not the case, which suggest that the intuitions that motivate these reconstructions involve theoretical purposes that are alien to the whole enterprise and probably involve some basic misconception about the nature of conditionals and arguments in general. Never mind the fact See, for example, Sorensen (1996), Nolan (1997) and Zalta (1997).12 !6 that these proposals would still acknowledge the denials of (LW), (TE) and (CP), which simply defy belief. One could argue that argumentative forms such as (AS), (HS) and (CON) are not inconsistent with the possible world account after all. They only seem inconsistent with the theory if we make an illicit context shift in the evaluation of an argumentative form. If the context is maintained fixed, those argumentative forms will turn out valid in the possible world account (Brogaard and Salerno, 2008). While it is undeniable that avoiding contextual fallacies remains a fundamental tenet of semantics, this solution doesn't have its intended effect in regard to the possible world account for two reasons. First, if we follow this stricture through, it will imply that (FPM) and (SPM) are valid as well (Silva, 2017). This result would undermine the whole reason for a possible world account in the first place. Second, as Cross (2011) so eloquently put it, there is no such thing as a contextual fallacy as far as the possible world system is concerned. The contextual fallacy is embedded in the very truth conditions of the logic system which were motivated by modal intuitions that rely on context shifting. So there is no way to correct it by simply adding further restrictions in the evaluation of conditionals. Now, let's move on to conditional-assertion theories. They state that if B is an assertive act, A → B is used to conditionally assert that B given A . One of the most surprisingly 13 features of conditional-assertion theory is its non-propositional requirement. The theory states that A → B is just a conditional act of B given A. Thus, it is not a proposition with truth values, much less a connective that combines two propositions to produce an additional proposition whose truth values are determined by its propositional constituents . This puts 14 conditionals in an entirely new light. Instead of being seen as static truth-functions, conditionals are now portrayed as action movements in natural language. Conditionalassertion theories will deny the following argumentative forms: • (AS): one could be willing to assert B given the assumption of A, but not under the assumption of A&C; • (HS): one could be willing to assert B under the assumption of A or C under the assumption of B, but not C under the assumption of A; • (CON): one could be willing to assert B given the assumption of A and still reject the assertion of ¬A given the assumption of ¬B; • (FPM): from ¬A nothing follows about whether one would be willing to assert B given the hypothetical acceptance of A; Some of the main proponents of the theory are Appiah (1985), Edgington (1986, 1995), Barker (1995), Woods 13 (1997); Derose (1999) and Derose & Grandy (1999). One could object that I'm ignoring conditional-assertion theories in its propositional version. These theories state that A → B is true when A and B are both true; false when A is true and B is false; and has no truth value when A is false, regardless of B's truth value. In other words, if A is false, A → B express no proposition. See Jeffrey (1963); Manor (1974) and McDermott (1996). The reason why I don't consider these views as versions of conditional-assertion theory is that this line of reasoning doesn't interpret conditionals as conditional speech acts, but as categorical assertions that are null when the antecedent is false. Derose & Grandy (1999: 407).14 !7 • (SPM): from B nothing follows about whether one would be willing to assert B given the hypothetical acceptance of A. This means that just as the possible world account, conditional assertion theories are also inconsistent with (LW), (TE), (CP), (ECQ) and (TV), and would have to endorse a notion of logical consequence that has no resemblance with anything we have in mind as far as the subject goes. It is important to notice that not every proponent of the theory will accept this interpretation. Edgington (1995: 254), who is known for being the main proponent of the theory, objects that the invalidity of hypothetical syllogism only seems plausible due to an illicit context shift. In the context where both premises A → B and B → C reflected acts of conditional assertion, it would also be a context where A → C would be an act of conditional assertion. But this type of answer is inadequate because even if one would be willing to make an act of conditional assertion, it does not follow that she did make an act of conditional assertion. This concession is also inadequate because a speaker may not anticipate the conclusions of her previous assertion commitments. The other problem is that even if we could demand consistency for arguers with a fixed context requirement, this would put in doubt the whole conditional assertion theory enterprise, since the counter-examples to the material implication will also be disarmed with a fixed context (Silva, 2017). The relationship between the classical notion of logical consequence and the material implication only occurs if the later is a form of implication in its own right. This seemingly innocuous observation presents another challenge for conditional assertion-theories since in their analysis of conditional sentences they are not analysed as a form of implication, but as a conditional assertion act. What is curious is that despite their many alleged differences, possible world and conditional assertion theories end up facing similar difficulties. The reason lies in the shared intuition that motivated each theory: the Ramsey's test. The test states that we accept A → B if, and only if, after the hypothetical addition of A to our belief system, and after making the required adjustments to maintain consistency without modifying the hypothetical belief in A, we would be willing to accept B . Conditional assertion theories are analogous to the 15 Ramsey's test as follows: the theory predicts that if B is an assertive act, A → B is synonymous with the willingness to assert B after the hypothetical addition of A to our belief system, and corresponding adjustments to maintain consistency without modifying the hypothetical belief in A . It is also common knowledge that possible world accounts were 16 initially designed as an ontological analogue of Ramsey's test: the closest A-world is the equivalent to the addition of A to our belief system after making the required adjustments to maintain consistency without abandoning the belief in A . 17 4. THE RICHNESS OF AN IMPLICATION APPROACH The connection between the material implication with logical consequence tout court implies that the discussion about the perplexities of the material implication and its alternatives Stalnaker (1968: 102). This is the modified and more widely discussed formulation of the test. The original 15 idea and formulation can be found in Ramsey (1929: 143). See Edgington (2014, sec. 3.1).16 See Stalnaker (1968: 102).17 !8 should not be framed as conditional connective problem, but as a restricted logical consequence problem. This implication approach opens multiple gateways since it increases our vocabulary. For instance, if the material implication and, therefore, conditional sentences, are interpreted as claims to restricted relations of logical consequence, then they can also be interpreted in terms of evidential relations. We can say that an argument is deductive if, and only if, conclusive favourable evidence to its conclusion is attributed to its premises. Consequently, a sentence is a conditional if, and only if, conclusive favourable evidence to its conclusion is attributed to its premises. Thinking in terms of implication invites different insights in a variety of problems such as the Apartheid thesis, the categorical nature of conditionals or conditionals embedding. There is no way of telling how much we can profit from this strategy. REFERENCES Ajdukiewicz, K. 1956. Conditional Sentence and Material Implication, Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic, 4(1), 117–153. Allott, N; H. Uchida. 2009a. Classical logic, conditionals and "nonmonotonic" reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(1), 85. Allott, N; H. Uchida. 2009b. Natural language indicative conditionals are classical. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 1–17. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/psychlangsci/research/linguistics/publications/ wpl/09papers/allott. Appiah, A. 1985. Assertion and Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barker, S. 1995. Towards a Pragmatic Theory of 'If'. Philosophical Studies. 79(2), 185–211. Brogaard, B., Salerno, J. 2008. Counterfactuals and context. Analysis, 68(1), 39–46. Ceniza, C. R. 1988. Material Implication and Entailment. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. 29(4), 510–519. Clark, M. 1971. Ifs and Hooks, Analysis, 32(2), 33–39. Cross, C. 2011. Comparative world similarity and what is held fixed in counterfactuals. Analysis, 71(1), 91–96. Davis, W. 1979. Indicative and Subjunctive Conditionals. The Philosophical Review, 88(4), 544–64. Derose, K. 1999. Can It Be That It Would Have Been Even Though It Might Not Have Been?," Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 387–413. Derose, K., Grandy, R. 1999. Conditional Assertions and "Biscuit" Conditionals. Noûs, 33(3), 405– 420. Edgington, D. 1986. Do Conditionals Have Truth Conditions? Crítica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, 18(52), 3–39. Edgington, D. 1995. On Conditionals, Mind 104: 235–329. Edgington, D. 2014. Indicative Conditionals. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/ conditionals/>. Grice, P. 1989. Indicative Conditionals. In: Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hanson, W. 1991. Indicative Conditionals Are Truth-Functional. Mind, New Series, 100(1), 53–72. Jackson, F. 1987. Conditionals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Jackson, F. 2006. Indicative Conditionals Revisited. Seminar at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. URL: http://phil.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/~phidept/TCIVP/jackson/indicative.pdf. Jeffrey, R. 1963. On Indeterminate Conditionals, Philosophical Studies, 14(3), 37–43. Leavitt, F. 1972. An Unpublished Remark of Russell's on "If ... Then". Russell: the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies, 92(2), 10. Lewis, D. 1973. Counterfactuals, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. !9 Lewis, D. 1976. Probabilities of Conditionals and Conditional Probabilities. Philosophical Review, 85(3), 297–315; reprinted in Harper et al. (eds.) (1981) Ifs, Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Manor, R. 1974. A Semantic Analysis of Conditional Assertion. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 3(1– 2): 37–52. McDermott, M. 1996. On the Truth Conditions of Certain 'If'-Sentences. The Philosophical Review, 105(1): 1–37 Mellor, D. 1993. How to Believe a Conditional. The Journal of Philosophy, 90(5), 233–248. Noh, E.-J. 1998. A relevance-theoretic account of metarepresentative uses in conditionals. In Rouchota, V. and A. H. Jucker, eds., Current Issues in Relevance Theory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 271–304. Nolan, D. 1997. Impossible Worlds A Modest Approach. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38(4), 535–572. Ramsey, F. 1929. General Propositions and Causality. In: Braithwaite, R. B., (ed.), The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays (pp. 237–255), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1950. Rieger, A. 2006. A simple theory of conditionals. Analysis, 66(3), 233–40. Rieger, A. 2013. Conditionals are material: the positive arguments. Synthese, 190(15), 3161–3174. Russell, L. 1970. 'If' and '⊃', Mind, 79. Silva, M. 2017. In Defense of Brogaard-Salerno Stricture. The Reasoner, 4, 42. Silva, M. 'If-then' as a version of 'Implies'. (unpublished). Smith, N. 1983. On Interpreting Conditionals. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 1–24. Smith, N., A. Smith. 1988. A Relevance-theoretic Account of Conditionals. In Larry M. Hyman; Charles N. Li, eds., Language, Speech and Mind: Essays in Honour of Victoria A. Fromkin, pp. 322–352. London: Routledge. Sorensen, R. 1996. Modal Bloopers Why Believable Impossibilities Are Necessary. American Philosophical Quarterly, 33(3), 247–261. Stalnaker, R. 1968. A Theory of Conditionals. In: Studies in Logical Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Stalnaker, R. 1975. Indicative Conditionals. Philosophia, 5(3), 269–86. Woods, M. 1987. Conditonals. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Zalta, E. 1997. A Classically-Based Theory of Impossible Worlds. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38(4), 640–660. !