Topics Logic

Question Can counterfactuals ever provide reasonable support to an argument? It seems as if this shouldn't be the case (why should something that hasn't happened be of relevance to anything), yet in some instances appears to not be entirely unreasonable. For example, "if you had listened to me and turned LEFT at the light, we wouldn't be late right now" seems valid enough in some favourable circumstances. In fact, whether or not such circumstances are favourable seems to be tied to the (thorny) problem of being able to perform induction. I ask because a lot of people use counterfactuals to "explain" failures/situations ("if you had worked harder, you wouldn't be in this position right now" or "if we hadn't struck first, they would have" etc.). Is this a legitimate argument?

Accepted:
March 1, 2006

Comments

If no one had asked this question, I wouldn't be answering it!

Of course counterfactuals can provide good reasons for thinking certain things. (I'm inclined to add that if they weren't, we wouldn't use them so much...) The very fact that something is recognizably true gives us reason to believe, right? And this is recognizably true: If no one had asked this question, I would be doing something else right now.

In fact, I am inclined to think that counterfactual reasoning is so deeply embedded in reasoning itself (especially deliberative reasoning, or choosing between different possible means or ends from which to choose) that we couldn't reason without them. In other words, if it weren't for our ability to use counterfactual reasoning, we couldn't reason at all!

OK, I admit it--I'm having some fun here. If I weren't, I wouldn't have answered this question.