Conceivability and Modal Knowledge

in a broader context of arguing against the view that conceivability provides epistemic access to the metaphysical modalities. His goal is “to identify the sources and forms of our knowledge of metaphysical possibility and metaphysical necessity” (205). 1 The account proceeds in two stages. First, he contends that “metaphysical necessity and metaphysical possibility can be reductively explained in terms of the subjunctive conditional” (224). Second, he maintains that his reductive explanation of metaphysical necessity yields two tests for determining whether a proposition is metaphysically necessary and two corresponding tests for determining whether a proposition is metaphysically possible. 2 Finally, Hill argues that his reductive account of the metaphysical modalities in conjunction with his account of modal knowledge underwrites the further conclusion that conceivability does not provide a reliable test for metaphysical possibility. 13