How people think about the truth of hypothetical impossibilities

Abstract

AbstractPeople can think about hypothetical impossibilities and a curious observation is that some impossible conditionals seem true and others do not. Four experiments test the proposal that people think about impossibilities just as they do possibilities, by attempting to construct a consistent simulation of the impossible conjecture with its suggested outcome, informed by their knowledge of the real world. The results show that participants judge some impossible conditionals true with one outcome, for example, “if people were made of steel, they would not bruise easily” and false with the opposite outcome, “if people were made of steel they would bruise easily”, and others false with either outcome, for example, “if houses were made of spaghetti, their engines would (not) be noisy”. However, they can sometimes judge impossible conditionals true with either outcome, for example, “if Plato were identical to Socrates, he would (not) have a small nose”, or “if sheep and wolves were alike, they would (not) eat grass”. The results were observed for judgments about what could be true (Experiments 1 and 4), judgments of degrees of truth (Experiment 2), and judgments of what is true (Experiment 3). The results rule out the idea that people evaluate the truth of a hypothetical impossibility by relying on cognitive processes that compare the probability of each conditional to its counterpart with the opposite outcome.