@article{article_617729, title={EPISTEMOLOGY OF COUNTERFACTUALS AND EXPERIENCE}, journal={FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi}, pages={131–140}, year={2014}, author={Öztürk, Fatih}, keywords={Williamson, counterfactual knowledge, imagination, philosophy of philosophy, experience, a priori / a posteriori distinction}, abstract={Williamson offers an imagination-based account of knowledge of counterfactuals, according to which sense experience plays a role that is neither evidential nor merely enabling. This involves the idea that, in coming to know a counterfactual conditional, S visually imagines its antecedent, i.e. supposes the antecedent, and goes on to develop the supposition by an offline imaginative or predictive mechanism that exploits all the background information consisting in S’s past experiences of how the actual world behaves; and if such a development leads S to add its consequent, then S is said to know the counterfactual. Thus, Williamson introduces an interesting epistemic role for sense experience that is not evidential and then goes on to claim that our knowledge of counterfactuals can be classified neither as a priori nor a posteriori. But if this is the case, then the traditional a priori/a posteriori dichotomy must be moved from its central place in epistemology. In what fallows I will argue that Williamson is mistaken in thinking that the role of sense experience in our knowledge of counterfactuals does not survive as part of our total evidence. If this is true, then Williamson’s epistemology of counterfactuals leaves the traditional a priori/a posteriori distinction unmoved. My purpose here is to argue why it is the case}, number={17}, publisher={Hamdi BRAVO}