Abstract:

My talk us not about the logic and semantics of counterfactual propositions, counterfactual theories of causation etc. It deals with an activity we all practice from time: counterfactual reasoning.

As reasoning it always begins with a question: “Might it have been otherwise?”, “Under which conditions might/would it have been otherwise? “What would have happened if…?  Subsequently, it develops  in sequences of answering and asking again.

Why is it reasonable to reason in counterfactual terms?  When does such an activity make sense? What are the principles for a reasonable way to reason in counterfactual terms?

In our own lives counterfactual reasoning often feels strange: The things we reason about are things you cannot do anything about. What is the point in doing it? Glücklich ist, wer vergisst was nicht zu veränder ist. Or?