How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles

Several theorists have been attracted to the idea that in order to account for counterpossibles, i.e. counterfactuals with impossible antecedents, we must appeal to impossible worlds. However, few have attempted to provide a detailed impossible worlds account of counterpossibles. Berit Brogaard and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Dialectica 2019-09, Vol.73 (3), p.315-329
1. Verfasser: Baras, Dan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 329
container_issue 3
container_start_page 315
container_title Dialectica
container_volume 73
creator Baras, Dan
description Several theorists have been attracted to the idea that in order to account for counterpossibles, i.e. counterfactuals with impossible antecedents, we must appeal to impossible worlds. However, few have attempted to provide a detailed impossible worlds account of counterpossibles. Berit Brogaard and Joe Salerno’s “Remarks on Counterpossibles” is one of the few attempts to fill in this theoretical gap. In this article, I critically examine their account. I prove a number of unanticipated implications of their account that end up implying a counterintuitive result. I then examine a suggested revision and point out a surprising implication of the revision.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/1746-8361.12269
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1111_1746_8361_12269</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48552625</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48552625</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3519-7f0df3450f1f20e76e09983c6d342573bd1673dcbfa991fb80baccfaa4a4885b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMtKAzEUhoMoWKtrV0JeYNpcJslkJeN4aaHgworLkMlFpkybmrSU7nwNX88nsWNtt57NORz-7xz4ALjGaIB3NcQi51lBOR5gQrg8Ab3j5hT0EMIkIwiLc3CR0gwhKiSmPWBGYQOrNiQHy-jgeL4MKTV16-BbiK1Nt7CEVWxWzcfaweDhXQzvWkcL9cLCF926uAjfn18JlsaE9WLVZapucPFwKV2CM6_b5K7-eh-8Pj5Mq1E2eX4aV-UkM5RhmQmPrKc5Qx57gpzgDklZUMMtzQkTtLaYC2pN7bWU2NcFqrUxXutc50XBatoHw_1dE3evo_NqGZu5jluFkeocqc6I6oyoX0c7gu-JTdO67X9xdT-ZVgfwZg_O0irEI5gXjBFOGP0BiWl0OQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Baras, Dan</creator><creatorcontrib>Baras, Dan</creatorcontrib><description>Several theorists have been attracted to the idea that in order to account for counterpossibles, i.e. counterfactuals with impossible antecedents, we must appeal to impossible worlds. However, few have attempted to provide a detailed impossible worlds account of counterpossibles. Berit Brogaard and Joe Salerno’s “Remarks on Counterpossibles” is one of the few attempts to fill in this theoretical gap. In this article, I critically examine their account. I prove a number of unanticipated implications of their account that end up implying a counterintuitive result. I then examine a suggested revision and point out a surprising implication of the revision.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-2017</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1746-8361</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1746-8361.12269</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Wiley</publisher><ispartof>Dialectica, 2019-09, Vol.73 (3), p.315-329</ispartof><rights>2019 The Author</rights><rights>2019 The Author © 2019 Editorial Board of</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3519-7f0df3450f1f20e76e09983c6d342573bd1673dcbfa991fb80baccfaa4a4885b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3519-7f0df3450f1f20e76e09983c6d342573bd1673dcbfa991fb80baccfaa4a4885b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48552625$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48552625$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Baras, Dan</creatorcontrib><title>How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles</title><title>Dialectica</title><description>Several theorists have been attracted to the idea that in order to account for counterpossibles, i.e. counterfactuals with impossible antecedents, we must appeal to impossible worlds. However, few have attempted to provide a detailed impossible worlds account of counterpossibles. Berit Brogaard and Joe Salerno’s “Remarks on Counterpossibles” is one of the few attempts to fill in this theoretical gap. In this article, I critically examine their account. I prove a number of unanticipated implications of their account that end up implying a counterintuitive result. I then examine a suggested revision and point out a surprising implication of the revision.</description><issn>0012-2017</issn><issn>1746-8361</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkMtKAzEUhoMoWKtrV0JeYNpcJslkJeN4aaHgworLkMlFpkybmrSU7nwNX88nsWNtt57NORz-7xz4ALjGaIB3NcQi51lBOR5gQrg8Ab3j5hT0EMIkIwiLc3CR0gwhKiSmPWBGYQOrNiQHy-jgeL4MKTV16-BbiK1Nt7CEVWxWzcfaweDhXQzvWkcL9cLCF926uAjfn18JlsaE9WLVZapucPFwKV2CM6_b5K7-eh-8Pj5Mq1E2eX4aV-UkM5RhmQmPrKc5Qx57gpzgDklZUMMtzQkTtLaYC2pN7bWU2NcFqrUxXutc50XBatoHw_1dE3evo_NqGZu5jluFkeocqc6I6oyoX0c7gu-JTdO67X9xdT-ZVgfwZg_O0irEI5gXjBFOGP0BiWl0OQ</recordid><startdate>20190901</startdate><enddate>20190901</enddate><creator>Baras, Dan</creator><general>Wiley</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190901</creationdate><title>How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles</title><author>Baras, Dan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3519-7f0df3450f1f20e76e09983c6d342573bd1673dcbfa991fb80baccfaa4a4885b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baras, Dan</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Dialectica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baras, Dan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles</atitle><jtitle>Dialectica</jtitle><date>2019-09-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>315</spage><epage>329</epage><pages>315-329</pages><issn>0012-2017</issn><eissn>1746-8361</eissn><abstract>Several theorists have been attracted to the idea that in order to account for counterpossibles, i.e. counterfactuals with impossible antecedents, we must appeal to impossible worlds. However, few have attempted to provide a detailed impossible worlds account of counterpossibles. Berit Brogaard and Joe Salerno’s “Remarks on Counterpossibles” is one of the few attempts to fill in this theoretical gap. In this article, I critically examine their account. I prove a number of unanticipated implications of their account that end up implying a counterintuitive result. I then examine a suggested revision and point out a surprising implication of the revision.</abstract><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1111/1746-8361.12269</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0012-2017
ispartof Dialectica, 2019-09, Vol.73 (3), p.315-329
issn 0012-2017
1746-8361
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1111_1746_8361_12269
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
title How Close Are Impossible Worlds? A Critique of Brogaard and Salerno’s Account of Counterpossibles
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T18%3A24%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20Close%20Are%20Impossible%20Worlds?%20A%20Critique%20of%20Brogaard%20and%20Salerno%E2%80%99s%20Account%20of%20Counterpossibles&rft.jtitle=Dialectica&rft.au=Baras,%20Dan&rft.date=2019-09-01&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=315&rft.epage=329&rft.pages=315-329&rft.issn=0012-2017&rft.eissn=1746-8361&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1746-8361.12269&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E48552625%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48552625&rfr_iscdi=true