 Philosophers, linguists, and psychologists remain fiercely divided on how to best understand counterfactuals. Rightly so. They are at the center of questions of deep human interest  (§1).  The renaissance on this topic in the 1970s and 1980s focused on addressing certain semantic puzzles and capturing the logic of counterfactuals  (§2).  From this seminal literature, similarity analyses (D. Lewis 1973b; Stalnaker 1968) have enjoyed the most widespread popularity in philosophy  (§2.3).  But the logical debate between similarity and strict analyses is still raging, and strict analyses provide a viable logical alternative  (§2.4).  Criticisms of these logical analyses have focused recent debates on our intuitions about particular utterances of counterfactuals in particular contexts. Structural equation analyses  (§3.3)  have emerged as a particularly prominent alternative to similarity and strict analyses, which claims to improve on both in significant respects. These analyses are now being actively developed by philosophers, linguists, psychologists, and computer scientists.