Defending truth values for indicative conditionals

Philosophical Studies - There is strong disagreement about whether indicative conditionals have truth values. In this paper, I present a new argument for the conclusion that indicative conditionals...     

The probability of causal conditionals

Conditionals in natural language are central to reasoning and decision making. A theoretical proposal called the Ramsey test implies the conditional probability hypothesis: that the subjective probability of a natural language conditional, P(if p then q), is the conditional subjective probability, P(q/p). We report three experiments on causal indicative conditionals and related counterfactuals that support this hypothesis. We measured the probabilities people assigned to truth table cases, P(pq), P(p notq), P( notpq) and P( notp notq). From these ratings, we computed three independent predictors, P(p), P(q/p) and P(q/ notp), that we then entered into a regression equation with judged P(if p then q) as the dependent variable. In line with the conditional probability hypothesis, P(q/p) was by far the strongest predictor in our experiments. This result is inconsistent with the claim that causal conditionals are the material conditionals of elementary logic. Instead, it supports the Ramsey test hypothesis, implying that common processes underlie the use of conditionals in reasoning and judgments of conditional probability in decision making.     

Reasoning as we read: Establishing the probability of causal conditionals

Indicative conditionals of the form if p then q (e.g., if student tuition fees rise, then applications for university places will fall) invite consideration of a hypothetical event (e.g., tuition fees rising) and of one of its possible consequences (e.g., applications falling). Since a rise in tuition fees is an uncertain event with equally uncertain consequences, a reader may believe the statement to a greater or lesser extent. As a conditional is read, the earliest point at which this probabilistic evaluation can take place is as the consequent clause is wrapped up (e.g., as the critical word fall is read in the example above). Wrap-up processing occurs at the end of the clause, as it is evaluated and integrated into the evolving discourse representation. Five sources of probability may plausibly influence the evaluation of a conditional as it is wrapped up; these are P(p), P(q), P(pq), P(q|p), and P(not-p or q). A total of 128 conditionals were constructed, with these probabilities calculated for each item in a pretest. The conditionals were then embedded in vignettes and read by 36 participants on a word-by-word basis. Using linear mixed-effects modeling, we found that wrap-up reading times were predicted by pretest ratings of P(p) and P(q|p). There was no influence of P(q), P(pq), or P(not-p or q) on wrap-up reading times. Our findings are consistent with the suppositional theory of conditionals proposed by Evans and Over (2004) but do not support the mental-models theory advanced by Johnson-Laird and Byrne (2002).     

The influence of clause order,congruency, and probability on the processing of conditionals

Conditional information can be equally asserted in the forms if p, then q (e.g., “if I am ill, I will miss work tomorrow”) and q, if p (e.g., “I will miss work tomorrow, if I am ill”). While this type of clause order manipulation has previously been found to have no influence on the ultimate conclusions participants draw from conditional rules, we used self-paced reading to examine how it affects the real time incremental processing of everyday conditional statements. Experiment 1 revealed that clause order interacts with presuppositional congruency as readers hypothetically represent counterfactual statements. When if p, then q counterfactuals contained a presupposition that was incongruent with prior context, these statements took longer to read than when the presupposition was congruent, but for q, if p conditionals there was no such congruency effect. Experiment 2 revealed that reading times were influenced by the subjective probability of an indicative conditional regardless of clause order, with a penalty observed for low-probability statements relative to high-probability statements in both conditional clause orders. These data reveal a dissociation whereby clause order mediates the effect of suppositional congruency on reading times, but does not mediate the effect of subjective probability.     

Indicative conditionals: probabilities and relevance

Philosophical Studies - We propose a new account of indicative conditionals, giving acceptability and logical closure conditions for them. We start from Adams’ Thesis: the claim that the...     

Conversation and conditionals

I outline and motivate a way of implementing a closest world theory of indicatives, appealing to Stalnaker’s framework of open conversational possibilities. Stalnakerian conversational dynamics helps us resolve two outstanding puzzles for a such a theory of indicative conditionals. The first puzzle—concerning so-called ‘reverse Sobel sequences’—can be resolved by conversation dynamics in a theory-neutral way: the explanation works as much for Lewisian counterfactuals as for the account of indicatives developed here. Resolving the second puzzle, by contrast, relies on the interplay between the particular theory of indicative conditionals developed here and Stalnakerian dynamics. The upshot is an attractive resolution of the so-called “Gibbard phenomenon” for indicative conditionals.     

Conditional probability judgments: Effects of imagining vs experiencing the conditioning event

Applications of Bayesian conditionalization often involve two temporal aspects: a probability judgment is based on knowledge at a point in time and is revised over time in light of added information. Let t, t′, and t″ designate three chronological points in time. E designates a target event which occurs or not at t″, and C designates a conditioning event which occurs or not at t′. Suppose that an individual judges P(EC) at t. If C occurs, Bayesian conditionalization requires that a judgment of P(E) at t′ is equal to the earlier judgment of P(EC). However, inconsistencies may result because a judgment of P(EC) at t is based on imagining C, while a judgment of P(E) at t′ is based on experiencing C. This study examines two sources of such inconsistencies. First, C normally is an abstraction of what might happen between t and t′. What actually happens may differ, such that an individual observes extraconditional information which affects a judgment of P(E) at t′. Second, experiencing C may change an individual's affective state, leading to greater optimism or pessimism about the occurrence of E. We report an experiment which documents both effects.     

Conditional probability and components of rt in the variable foreperiod experiment

If the passage of time during the foreperiod in a variable foreperiod experiment is marked by a series of tones, RT decreases with the conditional probability of stimulus occurrence. RTs at short foreperiods, however, are rather slower than would be expected on the basis of a simple conditional probability effect. It is suggested that this is attributable to an independent “initial slow reaction” effect, and it is shown that the degree of this effect is influenced by the duration of the prior foreperiod. The results are related to those of variable foreperiod a-reactions in which no conditional probability effect has been found, and it is argued that in a marked reaction of the kind described above, the initial slow reaction effect behaves like an a-reaction component of RT. It is suggested that the absence of a conditional probability effect in the a-reaction and its presence in the marked reaction are related to the fact that a different type of sensory process is used to identify the signal in each case.     

Bivalence and subjunctive conditionals

Writers such as Stalnaker and Dummett have argued that specific features of subjunctive conditional statements undermine the principle of bivalence. This, paper is concerned with rebutting such claims. 1. It is shown how subjective conditionals pose a prima facie threat to bivalence, and how this threat can be dissolved by a distinction between the results of negating a subjective conditional and of negating its consequent. To make this distinction is to side with Lewis against Stalnaker in a dispute about possible worlds semantics for such conditionals, and reasons are given for doing so. 2. These arguments are extended to answer Dummett's claim that behaviourist and phenomenalist analyses in terms of subjunctive conditions violate bivalence. This answer is shown to be compatible with the principle that hypothetical statements are true only in virtue of categorical facts.     

Causal conditionals and counterfactuals

Causal counterfactuals e.g., 'if the ignition key had been turned then the car would have started' and causal conditionals e.g., 'if the ignition key was turned then the car started' are understood by thinking about multiple possibilities of different sorts, as shown in six experiments using converging evidence from three different types of measures. Experiments 1a and 1b showed that conditionals that comprise enabling causes, e.g., 'if the ignition key was turned then the car started' primed people to read quickly conjunctions referring to the possibility of the enabler occurring without the outcome, e.g., 'the ignition key was turned and the car did not start'. Experiments 2a and 2b showed that people paraphrased causal conditionals by using causal or temporal connectives (because, when), whereas they paraphrased causal counterfactuals by using subjunctive constructions (had…would have). Experiments 3a and 3b showed that people made different inferences from counterfactuals presented with enabling conditions compared to none. The implications of the results for alternative theories of conditionals are discussed.     

Conversational scorekeeping and conditionals

David Lewis has recently developed the notion of conversational score-keeping as a way of explaining the acceptability of utterances in various contexts and the manner in which this acceptability changes in a rule-governed manner. I will expand Lewis's discussion by showing how the acceptibility of conditionals is linked to conversational score. In particular, I will argue that at least one controversial issue concerning the logic of conditionals, the interpretation and use of conditionals with disjunctive antecedents, may be resolved by applying Lewis's notion of an accommodation rule for conversational scorekeeping.1|This paper has benefitted from the helpful criticisms of two anonymous referees.     

Counterfactual and prefactual conditionals.

We consider reasoning about prefactual possibilities in the future, for example, "if I were to win the lottery next year I would buy a yacht" and counterfactual possibilities, for example, "if I had won the lottery last year, I would have bought a yacht." People may reason about indicative conditionals, for example, "if I won the lottery I bought a yacht" by keeping in mind a few true possibilities, for example, "I won the lottery and I bought a yacht." They understand counterfactuals by keeping in mind two possibilities, the conjecture, "I won the lottery and I bought a yacht" and the presupposed facts, "I did not win the lottery and I did not buy a yacht." We report the results of three experiments on prefactuals that examine what people judge them to imply, the possibilities they judge to be consistent with them, and the inferences they judge to follow from them. The results show that reasoners keep a single possibility in mind to understand a prefactual.     

The effectiveness of feedback in multiple-cue probability learning

How effective are different types of feedback in helping us to learn multiple contingencies? This article attempts to resolve a paradox whereby, in comparison to simple outcome feedback, additional feedback either fails to enhance or is actually detrimental to performance in nonmetric multiple-cue probability learning (MCPL), while in contrast the majority of studies of metric MCPL reveal improvements at least with some forms of feedback. In three experiments we demonstrate that if feedback assists participants to infer cue polarity then it can in fact be effective in nonmetric MCPL. Participants appeared to use cue polarity information to adopt a linear judgement strategy, even though the environment was nonlinear. The results reconcile the paradoxical contrast between metric and nonmetric MCPL and support previous findings of people's tendency to assume linearity and additivity in probabilistic cue learning.     

The effectiveness of feedback in multiple-cue probability learning

How effective are different types of feedback in helping us to learn multiple contingencies? This article attempts to resolve a paradox whereby, in comparison to simple outcome feedback, additional feedback either fails to enhance or is actually detrimental to performance in nonmetric multiple-cue probability learning (MCPL), while in contrast the majority of studies of metric MCPL reveal improvements at least with some forms of feedback. In three experiments we demonstrate that if feedback assists participants to infer cue polarity then it can in fact be effective in nonmetric MCPL. Participants appeared to use cue polarity information to adopt a linear judgement strategy, even though the environment was nonlinear. The results reconcile the paradoxical contrast between metric and nonmetric MCPL and support previous findings of people's tendency to assume linearity and additivity in probabilistic cue learning.     

Subjunctive biscuit and stand-off conditionals

Conventional wisdom has it that many intriguing features of indicative conditionals aren’t shared by subjunctive conditionals. Subjunctive morphology is common in discussions of wishes and wants, however, and conditionals are commonly used in such discussions as well. As a result such discussions are a good place to look for subjunctive conditionals that exhibit features usually associated with indicatives alone. Here I offer subjunctive versions of J. L. Austin’s ‘biscuit’ conditionals—e.g., “There are biscuits on the sideboard if you want them”—and subjunctive versions of Allan Gibbard’s ‘stand-off’ or ‘Sly Pete’ conditionals, in which speakers with no relevant false beliefs can in the same context felicitously assert conditionals with the same antecedents and contradictory consequents. My cases undercut views according to which the indicative/subjunctive divide marks a great difference in the meaning of conditionals. They also make trouble for treatments of indicative conditionals that cannot readily be generalized to subjunctives.