Deterministic Models and the “Unimportance of the Inevitable”

  • Claudio Pizzi


In some appreciated essays of the 1980s Jon Elster threw light on the conceptual difficulty which he described as “the basic paradox of counterfactuals”: the stronger (more deterministic) is the connection between antecedent and consequent of a counterfactual, the weaker is the legitimacy of the antecedent. The aim of the present paper is to show that Elster’s thesis rests on several confusions, the most important of which is the one between a theory and a model. When a model is deterministic, only several theoretical extra assumptions allow to qualify a counterfactual supposition as an illegitimate one. In particular, it is argued that only special auxiliary assumptions may allow or forbid drawing non trivial conclusions from suppositions which are “counter-possible”- i.e. such as to deny something which the theory asserts to be necessary - or “counterlegal”, i. e. implying the falsity of a law belonging to the model itself.


Causal Relation Deterministic Model Counterfactual Reasoning Notre Dame Journal Strict Implication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blalock, H., 1961,Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Climo,T.A. and Howells, P.G.A., 1976, Possible worlds in historical explanation,History and Theory15:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, D.J., 1988, The problem of counterpossibles,Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 29:91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Elster, J., 1978,Logic and Society, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  5. Elster, J., 1983,Explaining Technical Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Elster, J., 1980, Reply to comments,Inquiry, 23: 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fogel, R.W., 1964,Railroads and American Economic Growth, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  8. Genovese, E., 1965,The Political Economics of slavery, Pantheon Books, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Kim, J., 1973, Causation, nomic subsumption, and the concept of event,Journal of Philosophy, 70:217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lewis, D.K., 1973,Counterfactuals, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Lukes, S., 1980, Elster on counterfactuals,Inquiry, 23: 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pearl, J. and Blake, A., 1995, Counterfactuals ad policy analysis in structural models, in P. Besnard and S. Hanks, eds.,Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 11, UCLA Cognitive Systems Laboratory, Technical Report (R-232-U), Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Pizzi, C., 1991, Decision procedures for logics of consequential implication,Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic32:618–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reichenbach, H., 1954,Nomological statements and Admissible Operations, North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. Rosenberg, N., 1974, Science, invention and economic growth,Economic Journal84:90–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simon H.A and Rescher N., 1966, Cause and counterfactuals,Philosophy of Science33:323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Simon, H.A., 1957,Models of Man, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudio Pizzi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Social SciencesUniversity of SienaSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations