Every revolution has its apostates, those people who come to see the light, albeit through a glass darkly, but later turn away from the path of righteousness. The Dudman Revolution is no exception. Our Apostate is Jonathan Bennett, senior philosopher of many accomplishments, a man who has written engagingly and accurately across a very wide range.
Sons and Daughters of the Revolution may come to think that concerning if-sentences he is wrong about almost everything. But they should be grateful to him nonetheless. For it was The Apostate who introduced the ideas of Our Revered Leader to the world of academic philosophers, and gave some of those ideas a ringing endorsement. Here is the celebrated article:
Farewell to the Phlogiston Theory of Conditionals, Mind vol. 97 (1988), pp. 509-527
It is downloadable from Jstor.
Unfortunately, The Apostate never took on board the maximally insurgent tenets of Dudmania, those concerning the priority of Grammar over Semantics, the vacuity of the indicative/subjunctive dichotomy, the rejection of antecedents and consequents, the rejection of truth-values for conditionals, the thinking lying behind them, and so on. And seven years later he published a recantation. Here it is:
Classifying Conditionals: The Traditional Way is Right, Mind vol.104 (1995), pp. 331-354
This article, too, is downloadable from Jstor. You can inspect Our Revered Leader's sharp dismissal here.
The Battle continues, for The Apostate has now produced a VERY BIG BOOK which claims to utterly demolish the Dudman position on these matters. Thus:
A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals, OUP 2003
You can read the wretched thing here.
True Sons and Daughters will find it a very good test of Correct Revolutionary Thinking to work through the various counter-revolutionary measures herein deployed by Mr. Bennett. For now, I merely record my opinion that all of them fail.
V.H. Dudman 
