Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 1. Peter King takes up this position in P. King, ‘Mediaeval Thought-Experiments: The Metamethodology of Mediaeval Science’, in Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy, eds. T. Horowitz and G.J. Massey (Savage, MD, 1991), 43–64.

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 1. Peter King takes up this position in P. King, ‘Mediaeval Thought-Experiments: The Metamethodology of Mediaeval Science’, in Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy, eds. T. Horowitz and G.J. Massey (Savage, MD, 1991), 43–64.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 15.

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 15.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 17, 19.

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 17, 19.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 30–31.

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 30–31.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 31; cf. also S. Read, ‘Obligations, Sophisms, and Insolubles’, Technical Report, Higher School of Economics, National Research University (2013), which gives a reconstruction of Kilvington’s rules.

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 31; cf. also S. Read, ‘Obligations, Sophisms, and Insolubles’, Technical Report, Higher School of Economics, National Research University (2013), which gives a reconstruction of Kilvington’s rules.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 11.

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 11.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Stump, ‘The Logic of Disputation’, 370.

Stump, ‘The Logic of Disputation’, 370.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, note 6. King follows suit, cf. King, ‘Mediaeval Thought-Experiments’, 52. Even though Michael Woods notes that counterfactuals in English more and more often do not use the subjunctive mood (cf. Woods, Conditionals [Oxford, 1997], 6–7), the use of the subjunctive in this fashion is much more ubiquitous in Latin, even though the standard counterfactual construction, using the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive, is “simply not found with regularity anywhere in the vicinity of treatises de obligationibus” (cf. Spade, ‘Obligationes’, 172).

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, note 6. King follows suit, cf. King, ‘Mediaeval Thought-Experiments’, 52. Even though Michael Woods notes that counterfactuals in English more and more often do not use the subjunctive mood (cf. Woods, Conditionals [Oxford, 1997], 6–7), the use of the subjunctive in this fashion is much more ubiquitous in Latin, even though the standard counterfactual construction, using the imperfect or pluperfect subjunctive, is “simply not found with regularity anywhere in the vicinity of treatises de obligationibus” (cf. Spade, ‘Obligationes’, 172).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Lewis, ‘Counterfactuals and Comparative Possibility’, 59.

Lewis, ‘Counterfactuals and Comparative Possibility’, 59.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

R.C. Stalnaker, ‘A Defense of Conditional Excluded Middle’, in Ifs, eds. Harper, Stalnaker, and Peirce, 87–104, at 98.

R.C. Stalnaker, ‘A Defense of Conditional Excluded Middle’, in Ifs, eds. Harper, Stalnaker, and Peirce, 87–104, at 98.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

C.J. Martin, ‘Obligations and Liars’, in Medieval Formal Logic, ed. M. Yrjönsuuri (Dordrecht, 2001), 63–94.

C.J. Martin, ‘Obligations and Liars’, in Medieval Formal Logic, ed. M. Yrjönsuuri (Dordrecht, 2001), 63–94.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

E.W. Adams, ‘Subjunctive and Indicative Conditionals’, Foundations of Language 6 (1970), 89–94, at 89.

E.W. Adams, ‘Subjunctive and Indicative Conditionals’, Foundations of Language 6 (1970), 89–94, at 89.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Adams, ‘Subjunctive and Indicative Conditionals’, 93.

Adams, ‘Subjunctive and Indicative Conditionals’, 93.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Adams, ‘Subjunctive and Indicative Conditionals’, 92.

Adams, ‘Subjunctive and Indicative Conditionals’, 92.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Woods, Conditionals, 10.

Woods, Conditionals, 10.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Woods, Conditionals, 79, 84.

Woods, Conditionals, 79, 84.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

DeRose, ‘Lewis’, 414–415.

DeRose, ‘Lewis’, 414–415.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Stump, ‘Obligations’, 320. Stump is speaking primarily of Burley at this point.

Stump, ‘Obligations’, 320. Stump is speaking primarily of Burley at this point.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Woods, Conditionals, 84.

Woods, Conditionals, 84.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Woods, Conditionals, 79.

Woods, Conditionals, 79.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

De Rijk, ‘Some Thirteenth Century Tracts’, 30.

De Rijk, ‘Some Thirteenth Century Tracts’, 30.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 11. Peter King repeats this point, cf. King, ‘Mediaeval Thought-Experiments’, 52.

Spade, ‘Three Theories’, 11. Peter King repeats this point, cf. King, ‘Mediaeval Thought-Experiments’, 52.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

N. Asher and E. McCready, ‘Were, Would, Might and a Compositional Account of Counterfactuals’, Journal of Semantics 24 (2007), 93–129.

N. Asher and E. McCready, ‘Were, Would, Might and a Compositional Account of Counterfactuals’, Journal of Semantics 24 (2007), 93–129.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Stump, ‘The Logic of Disputation’, 357.

Stump, ‘The Logic of Disputation’, 357.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

F.B. Fitch, ‘A Logical Analysis of Some Value Concepts’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 28 (1963), 135–142. G.E. Moore, Commonplace Book 1919–1953, (London, 1962).

F.B. Fitch, ‘A Logical Analysis of Some Value Concepts’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 28 (1963), 135–142. G.E. Moore, Commonplace Book 1919–1953, (London, 1962).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation