ABSTRACT
Counterfactual reasoning appears to be a universal phenomenon of human inference from childhood to adulthood, yet, the prevailing explanations seem able to capture only a limited aspect of the process and are in need of an overarching framework. We propose that David Lewis’ possible worlds analysis offers a first approximation to such a framework and gives a psychologically plausible account of counterfactuals. It identifies the unique properties of our ability to reason from false assumptions—whether talking about pretense or revising our beliefs. Three experiments are offered to suggest the plausibility of this account.
