In Defence of the Material Conditional

The material conditional has long been charged with paradox. Defined truth-functionally, it renders true any conditional whose antecedent is false or consequent true -- hence, seemingly absurd statements such as `If unicorns exist, then $2+2=4$'. This has been taken as proof that the connective cannot capture the meaning of ordinary if-then sentences, which appear to imply a causal or evidential link. I argue, by contrast, that the paradoxes arise from a confusion of what it expresses caused by cognitive biases. The material conditional properly belongs to the class of indicative, not subjunctive, conditionals -- those that register patterns of co-variation rather than counterfactual dependence. When understood as a formal device marking entailment under a background theory, it faithfully represents a mode of reasoning essential to science itself: correlation without causation. The faults ascribed to it, therefore, are not flaws in meaning or standard use, but as misapplication and misreading.