There are two main traditions which focus on delivering acceptability conditions for conditionals rather than truth conditions.
Gärdenfors 1978 follows a third line of inquiry focused on providing acceptability conditions for conditionals in terms of (non-probabilistic) belief revision policies.
Toward that end, he argues for a particular account of utterance meaning as based on "acceptability conditions," by analogy to the truth-conditional account of the meaning of sentences.
Ramsey thought that conditionals are not truth value bearers, but that they have exact acceptability conditions.[2] A more faithful rendering of Ramsey's ideas, compatible with the idea that conditionals do not carry truth-values, can also lead to an exact logical and semantical analysis.
Although Habermas often presents his pragmatics as a further development in analytic theories of meaning, his analysis focuses primarily on the context-sensitive acceptability of speech acts: acceptability conditions as a function of formal features that distinguish different speech situations.
> Shedding light on this overwhelming acceptability of conditions, informants spoke of how conditions entice behaviours that are locally embraced and facilitate social accountability of 'free' money (see Table 2).
Articles like yours in response to Ms. Wilson's admittedly over-the-top commentary provide political cover and some sort of fuzzy acceptability for conditions that should not be acceptable, culturally, socially or politically.
Another pathway to community acceptability of conditions pertains to the opportunities for social accountability that conditions present.
First, to investigate the overall buy-in among the general community of conditions and, second, to contextualize these findings by elaborating on local perspectives of conditions, identifying perceptions and pathways that contribute to a community acceptability of conditions.
