- Unlike accidental generalizations, nomic generalizations support counterfactual conditionals. (So, for example, if it is a law that copper is a good conductor, then, if this piece of wood was made of copper, it would be a good conductor.)
- Some properties are essential to their bearers (So, for example, it is metaphysically impossible for this piece of wood to be made of anything other than wood and a fortiori to be made of copper).
- Counterfactuals whose antecedent is necessarily false are vacuously true.
Now, I'd be curious to hear which one(s) of the above theses (if any) the readers of this blog think should be amended/rejected in order to resolve the conflict and why. (I do have a main suspect, but, in order to avoid skewing my little survey, I'm not going to reveal its identity for the moment).