Begging to differ with similarity accounts of counterfactuals

Prof Alan Hajek (Australian National University)

Widespread agreement among philosophers on a given topic is rare. However, it is enjoyed by the Stalnaker/Lewis similarity accounts of counterfactuals. Roughly, they say that the counterfactual

if p were the case, q would be the case

is true if and only if

at the nearest p-worlds, q is true.

I disagree with these accounts, for many reasons. A recurring problem is that they render true various implausibly specific counterfactuals. I suggest an alternative proposal for the right-hand side:

at the sufficiently near p-worlds, q is true.

Reading to complete in advance: David Lewis, “Counterfactual dependence and time's arrow,” Nous 13 (1979): 455-76.