Another quick note on “Lycan”:http://www.unc.edu/%7Eujanel/Gettier.htm, this one more in agreement.

bq. Indeed, that difficulty was predictable, because (a) it was almost irresistible to start the further analysis with a subjunctive of some kind, and (b) any time any analysis of anything contains a subjunctive, irrelevant counterexamples will ensue. (b) is worth a paper of its own.

I always thought the best simple description of the “Conditional Fallacy” in Shope’s paper of the same name was _the fallacy of thinking that the analysis you’re after contains (subjunctive) conditionals_. Shope said something more subtle, but that was the easiest takeaway line. I’m glad to see someone else agrees!