{"id":9183,"date":"2025-05-06T13:58:00","date_gmt":"2025-05-06T11:58:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/?p=9183"},"modified":"2026-05-12T14:02:50","modified_gmt":"2026-05-12T12:02:50","slug":"can-elves-and-vampires-have-dark-skin-counterfactual-thinking-in-philosophy-and-on-the-internet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/can-elves-and-vampires-have-dark-skin-counterfactual-thinking-in-philosophy-and-on-the-internet\/","title":{"rendered":"Can elves and vampires have dark skin? Counterfactual thinking in philosophy\u00a0\u2013\u00a0and on the Internet"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\u201cIf you don\u2019t surrender, we\u2019ll start shooting!\u201d police negotiators warn the robbers hiding inside the bank. The threat may be effective because the criminals can easily imagine a scenario in which they\u2019re killed by police gunfire. If they choose to surrender and end up in prison, they\u2019ll likely find themselves asking \u201cwhat if,\u201d wondering whether there might have been another way out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWhat would have happened if\u2026?\u201d is a question that crosses our minds quite often \u2013 even when we\u2019re not planning a bank robbery. This kind of reasoning \u2013 \u201cif X, then Y\u201d \u2013 is known in philosophy as a conditional. Among conditionals, some we intuitively take to be true (\u201cIf I go to the seaside, I\u2019ll be able to swim\u201d), while others we tend to regard as false (\u201cIf I go to the seaside, I\u2019ll be able to ski\u201d). But sentences like \u201cIf I had been there with you, everything would have turned out differently\u2026\u201d or \u201cIf I hadn\u2019t done that, I\u2019d be a different person now\u201d are examples of so-called counterfactuals \u2013 and those are much trickier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The difficulty with counterfactuals is that we don\u2019t really know what makes them true or false. What does it mean to say, \u201cIf something hadn\u2019t happened, something else would have\u201d? How can we know what would have happened if it didn\u2019t? Why do our intuitions favor some answers over others \u2013 and how can we even talk about truth or falsity in situations that never actually occurred? These questions might seem like abstract philosophical puzzles. In reality, though, counterfactual thinking plays a central role in how our minds work \u2013 from how we experience emotions to how we develop advanced science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Counterfactual reasoning is what makes us feel disappointed when things don\u2019t go our way. It\u2019s also behind that sudden pang of unease when we\u2019re sitting at home and realize there\u2019s a party we\u2019re missing. The same kind of thinking fuels heated debates among fans of Tolkien or Sapkowski about how fictional worlds should look on screen. And it drives the excitement of scientists testing bold new hypotheses. In each case, it all comes back to the same question: \u201cWhat would have happened if\u2026?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The question of counterpossibles<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
But counterfactuals become especially puzzling when their starting assumption is not merely false, but impossible. Consider: “If 2+2 were equal to 5, mathematics would collapse.” Or: “If a whale were a fish, it would have gills.” These are what philosophers call counterpossibles \u2013 counterfactual conditionals with impossible antecedents. And they pose a unique challenge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the orthodox view, since the antecedent of a counterpossible can never be true, all counterpossibles come out trivially \u2013 or, as philosophers say, vacuously \u2013 true, regardless of what follows. “If a whale were a fish, it would have gills” would be just as true as “If a whale were a fish, it would have wings” \u2013 simply because a whale cannot be a fish. That conclusion strikes most of us as deeply unsatisfying. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unorthodox approaches try to do better: they hold that we can meaningfully distinguish among counterpossibles, accepting some as true and rejecting others as false. The challenge, however, is explaining how. What makes this question significant beyond its apparent niche is that counterpossibles are not a special, exotic category \u2013 they arise from the very same kind of reasoning we use when we wonder what would have happened if we had caught an earlier train or chosen a different career. A satisfying theory of counterfactuals should be able to handle both the possible and the impossible in a unified way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Drawing on both traditions, Prof. Maciej Send\u0142ak of the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Warsaw has proposed a new theory that aims to do just that. His proposal \u2013 the Dependence Account of Counterfactuals \u2013 starts from the idea that our beliefs about the world don\u2019t exist in isolation; they\u2019re connected to one another in complex ways. To assess whether a given counterfactual might be true, we need to consider both its consequences and the beliefs it rests on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe feel satisfied after passing an exam because we think, \u2018If I hadn\u2019t passed, all that work would have been for nothing.\u2019 We feel regret after losing a loved one because we imagine, \u2018If they were still here, we could go for a walk,\u2019\u201d explains Prof. Maciej Send\u0142ak.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Statements like these feel true to us because they have plausible foundations and consequences that make sense in light of what we know about the world. In the Dependence Account, the truth of a counterfactual depends on how it connects to other judgments. For example, we\u2019re inclined to accept the claim, \u201cIf Boles\u0142aw Chrobry \u2013 Poland\u2019s first king [ed.] \u2013 had not been crowned, his state\u2019s position would have been weaker,\u201d because we recognize a link between holding a royal title and participating in medieval international politics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe justify counterfactuals by drawing on what we know about the actual world. The Dependency Account shows that the essence of counterfactual reasoning lies in real relations between states of affairs \u2013 regardless of whether we are considering an alternative course of history, an unreal experimental setup, or a purely logical abstraction,\u201d Prof. Send\u0142ak concludes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fictional worlds, real debates<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Counterfactual conditionals lie at the foundation of art. They also shape how we interpret and engage with it. When we read a novel or watch a film, we \u2013 often without realizing it \u2013 constantly assess what in the fictional world is \u201ctrue\u201d and what is \u201cfalse.\u201d This is especially clear in genres such as fantasy and science fiction. The worlds created by writers and screenwriters engage our imagination insofar as they are internally coherent. This means that we treat certain assumptions about these worlds as true or false conditional claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That this is far from a trivial matter is evident in the heated debates that regularly flare up in both public discourse and online. Examples include the controversy surrounding the casting of Black actors as elves in Amazon Prime Video\u2019s The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power<\/em>, as well as ongoing disputes over the depiction of a dark-skinned vampire in Netflix\u2019s adaptation of The Witcher<\/em>. What may look like an argument about casting choices or character design is, at its core, a disagreement over competing counterfactual claims: \u201cIf elves existed, they would have a single skin tone\u201d versus \u201cIf elves existed, they could have different skin tones.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Science, too, relies heavily on reasoning about the impossible. At its core are hypotheses and their testing, and hypotheses are essentially conditionals: \u201cIf assumption X is correct, then we should observe Y.\u201d Both the natural sciences and the humanities make extensive use of thought experiments \u2013 constructed scenarios, possible or impossible, designed to explore and solve theoretical problems. None of this would be possible without our ability to evaluate counterfactual claims as either true or false.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAn interesting application of counterfactual reasoning can be found in developmental psychology. One classic example is the so-called false-belief test, which examines whether a child can understand another person\u2019s perspective. It ultimately comes down to reasoning such as: \u2018If I thought like Johnny, I would believe that\u2026\u2019 Thought experiments \u2013 whether in ethics, physics, or philosophy \u2013 are entirely built on counterfactual reasoning. Each one places us in a situation that never actually occurred and asks us to draw conclusions from it. Another example is the well-known trolley problem, where we are asked what we would do \u2013 or what should be done \u2013 in a given scenario,\u201d notes Prof. Send\u0142ak.<\/p>\n\n\n\nA smartphone can sometimes be more important than relaxing on vacation. The fear of missing out on information takes precedence. Photo: ShuttrJake\/Freepik<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
FOMO and Conspiracy Theories<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Counterfactuals lie at the core of how we think. Even when we\u2019re not aware of it, our beliefs about the world are built on layers of underlying assumptions. This also applies to beliefs that can be potentially harmful \u2013 such as conspiracy theories. Prof. Send\u0142ak argues, however, that the Dependence Account offers a way to effectively refute them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBy testing conditionals, we can expose the internal inconsistencies in certain theories. \u2018If the Earth were flat, a total lunar eclipse would be impossible.\u2019 \u2018If the moon landing had been staged in a studio, it would not have shown physical effects specific to the lunar environment \u2013 such as how people move in low gravity or how dust behaves in a vacuum,\u2019\u201d the scientist explains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another phenomenon closely linked to counterfactual thinking is FOMO (fear of missing out). It describes the anxiety we feel when we sense that we\u2019re missing out on important events. In an age of information overload and constant social media updates, it has become an increasingly relevant challenge to emotional well-being. Experiencing FOMO can be as simple as picking up a smartphone: the sheer flow of information about what is happening \u201cout there,\u201d while we remain at home, can quickly become overwhelming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
FOMO follows a recognizable thought pattern. We observe a real-life situation \u2013 for example, friends posting from a concert we didn\u2019t attend. We then construct a counterfactual alternative: \u201cIf I had gone with them, I\u2019d have such great memories right now.\u201d We compare it with our actual situation, and this comparison produces feelings of sadness and regret. In this sense, FOMO depends on imagining an alternative version of reality in which we acted differently and ended up better off. This is a typical conditional \u2013 if X, then Y \u2013 which we don\u2019t question as false, but instead intuitively accept as true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cFOMO and conditionals are closely intertwined, since FOMO is largely driven by counterfactual thinking. From the perspective of my theory, it\u2019s worth noting that the causal relation we perceive in such situations \u2013 and which leads us to accept a conditional as true \u2013 may in fact be much weaker than we assume. Not every concert is great, and investing in stocks always involves risk. In other words, FOMO may reflect a simplified or cognitively distorted form of counterfactual reasoning. Our tendency to treat certain relations as self-evident can lead us to mistakenly assume that an alternative reality would necessarily be better,\u201d concludes the researcher.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Philosophers will no doubt continue to explore the problem of counterfactuals, and it is only a matter of time before someone identifies the limitations of the theory developed at the University of Warsaw and proposes a new one. From the perspective of everyday life, however, what matters is that these reflections help us better understand ourselves \u2013 how unconscious inferences shape our emotions, and how the unactualized continues to shape the way we think.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/serwisnaukowy.uw.edu.pl\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/dinner-7736494_1920-kadr-1024x936-1.webp\")