Synopsis generated from the Introduction:
This critical notice of Timothy Williamson’s Modal Logic as Metaphysics focuses less on particular defenses of necessitism than on Williamson’s preferred “logic-driven” methodology for modal metaphysics. Against the prevailing intuition-driven approach—where theories are weighed by the balance of intuitive support—Williamson urges that modal theories be stated in a precise formal language and assessed as systems of strong, accurate generalizations about modal reality, in the spirit of the natural sciences. Sullivan argues that this methodology is not viable because it arbitrarily restricts admissible evidence, in violation of a principle of Evidence Inclusion. She illustrates the problem with an essentialist argument for contingentism whose potential evidence the logic-driven approach must exclude, and concludes that this exclusion is arbitrary—an important result given that Williamson’s case for necessitism depends on the success of that methodology.