But the because is not about imagining another state of the world, it's about using logic.
If me turning on the light is a necessary condition for the light being on, then it implies that if I did not turn on the light the light is off. There is no speculation. This is also what distinguishes this one "counterfactual" from all the others.
The article seems to completely ignore that we can readily argue about negative statements. I highly doubt that airplane crash investigators would avoid counterfactuals.
If me turning on the light is a necessary condition for the light being on, then it implies that if I did not turn on the light the light is off. There is no speculation. This is also what distinguishes this one "counterfactual" from all the others.
The article seems to completely ignore that we can readily argue about negative statements. I highly doubt that airplane crash investigators would avoid counterfactuals.