Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

The Prospects for a Monist Theory of Non-causal Explanation in Science and Mathematics.

Erkenntnis·2022

Same journal

A plea for multilateralism.

Philosophical studies·2026

Same journal

The Pragmatics and the Normativity of Ignorance Attributions.

Philosophical studies·2026

Same journal

The form of <i>good</i>.

Philosophical studies·2026

Same journal

Being social, being socially constructed, and being fundamental relative to social reality.

Philosophical studies·2026

Same journal

Epistemic innocence and the production of false memory beliefs.

Philosophical studies·2026

Same journal

Moral encroachment and group-to-individual inferences.

Philosophical studies·2025

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Aug 13, 2025

Author Spotlight: Characterizing Novel Enzymes from Extremophiles and Common Pathogens to Understand DNA Repair and Replication

Author Spotlight: Characterizing Novel Enzymes from Extremophiles and Common Pathogens to Understand DNA Repair and Replication

Published on: July 5, 2024

Williamson on conditionals and testimony.

Karolina Krzyżanowska¹, Igor Douven²

¹Department of Philosophy & Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Philosophical Studies

|January 24, 2023

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

This study challenges Williamson's material conditional account, arguing that conflicting conditional statements are misinterpreted due to overlooked heuristics. The findings suggest heuristics are overestimated, impacting everyday conditional assessments.

Keywords:

Heuristics Indicative conditionals Material conditional Testimony

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Integrating Mechanical and Biological Analysis in Tendinopathy Research

Author Spotlight: Integrating Mechanical and Biological Analysis in Tendinopathy Research

Published on: March 1, 2024

Comparing the Affinity of GTPase-binding Proteins using Competition Assays

Comparing the Affinity of GTPase-binding Proteins using Competition Assays

Published on: October 8, 2015

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Aug 13, 2025

Author Spotlight: Characterizing Novel Enzymes from Extremophiles and Common Pathogens to Understand DNA Repair and Replication

Author Spotlight: Characterizing Novel Enzymes from Extremophiles and Common Pathogens to Understand DNA Repair and Replication

Published on: July 5, 2024

Author Spotlight: Integrating Mechanical and Biological Analysis in Tendinopathy Research

Author Spotlight: Integrating Mechanical and Biological Analysis in Tendinopathy Research

Published on: March 1, 2024

Comparing the Affinity of GTPase-binding Proteins using Competition Assays

Comparing the Affinity of GTPase-binding Proteins using Competition Assays

Published on: October 8, 2015

Area of Science:

Philosophy of Language
Logic
Cognitive Science

Background:

Williamson's 'Suppose and Tell' proposes a material conditional account.
This account relies on specific interpretations of conflicting conditional statements.
The role of heuristics in processing conditionals is a key point of contention.

Purpose of the Study:

To critically evaluate Williamson's material conditional account.
To challenge the evidential role of conflicting conditional cases in supporting the material conditional account.
To reassess the influence and scope of heuristics in understanding conditional statements.

Main Methods:

Analysis of logical arguments presented in Williamson's 'Suppose and Tell'.
Examination of empirical assumptions regarding the processing of conditionals and heuristics.
Counter-argumentation based on the interpretation of conflicting conditional scenarios.

Main Results:

Williamson's key cases do not support the material conditional account as intended.
The proposed role of heuristics in misinterpreting conditionals is overestimated.
The assumption that recipients accept conflicting conditionals at face value is questioned.

Conclusions:

The material conditional account, as defended by Williamson, is not adequately supported by the analyzed cases.
Heuristics play a less dominant role than suggested, and their impact on conditional processing is overstated.
Further research is needed to refine our understanding of conditional reasoning and testimony.