8 ms·

Are you saying that "If I had turned on the lights, they would be on" wouldn't be a true statement? It seems like it would be strange to reject as an answer to

by drdeca 5y ago

Are you saying that "If I had turned on the lights, they would be on" wouldn't be a true statement? It seems like it would be strange to reject as an answer to "why do blind people tend spend less on lighting?" with "Because they don't tend to use the lighting, because the lighting isn't useful to them, so they don't turn the lights on as much (unless someone else who isn't blind is there).". How else would you answer that question? (modulo little wording changes and such)

GavinMcG 5y ago
It's tautologically true, in that you used the word "on" in both clauses, and "if on, then on" is always true. But no, in a meaningful sense it's not a true statement about the world. It's a good guess, and for a statement that simple, there might be no need to go further. For a statement about why a volume is full with too many files, the point is that a nice-sounding "if only" isn't something you can test or be certain of. Your answer about blind people is a very good guess as well, and the same one I would make, but it's not data.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  I actually meant to present that as: Because I didn't flip the switch. A counterfactual requires posing a situation with changed facts. I stand by my statement, saying "X because not Y" is not a counterfactual on its own. "not Y" is still a (potentially) factual statement. And guesses still aren't counterfactuals. "Maybe the lights aren't on because we didn't flip the switch?" That's a hypothesis, and a testable one. Still not a counterfactual. If we know the flip hasn't been switched, then it's just a fact even if the statement is in the form of not X.
  - cwp 5y ago
    The counterfactual is "if I had flipped the switch, the lights would be on." That is a situation with changed facts, and therefore counterfactual. The tricky bit is the causality. We have to construct an alternate history, with a counterfactual cause and a counterfactual result. And we can't actually know that. Maybe the bulb is burnt out. Maybe there's a power outage just now. Maybe we've blown a fuse. The causality is just conjecture. Now consider the opposite. The lights are off because the bulb burnt out. That's a lot less ambiguous. If you want to doubt the causality you've got to get all mystical.

by drdeca 5y ago

GavinMcG 5y ago

It's tautologically true, in that you used the word "on" in both clauses, and "if on, then on" is always true. But no, in a meaningful sense it's not a true statement about the world. It's a good guess, and for a statement that simple, there might be no need to go further. For a statement about why a volume is full with too many files, the point is that a nice-sounding "if only" isn't something you can test or be certain of. Your answer about blind people is a very good guess as well, and the same one I would make, but it's not data.

Jtsummers 5y ago
I actually meant to present that as: Because I didn't flip the switch. A counterfactual requires posing a situation with changed facts. I stand by my statement, saying "X because not Y" is not a counterfactual on its own. "not Y" is still a (potentially) factual statement. And guesses still aren't counterfactuals. "Maybe the lights aren't on because we didn't flip the switch?" That's a hypothesis, and a testable one. Still not a counterfactual. If we know the flip hasn't been switched, then it's just a fact even if the statement is in the form of not X.
- cwp 5y ago
  The counterfactual is "if I had flipped the switch, the lights would be on." That is a situation with changed facts, and therefore counterfactual. The tricky bit is the causality. We have to construct an alternate history, with a counterfactual cause and a counterfactual result. And we can't actually know that. Maybe the bulb is burnt out. Maybe there's a power outage just now. Maybe we've blown a fuse. The causality is just conjecture. Now consider the opposite. The lights are off because the bulb burnt out. That's a lot less ambiguous. If you want to doubt the causality you've got to get all mystical.