Is Everything Revisable?

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Over the decades, the claim that everything is revisable (defended by Quine and others) has played an important role in Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. Some time ago, Katz (1988) argued that this claim is paradoxical. This paper does not discuss this objection but rather argues that the claim of universal revisability allows for two different readings but in each case leads to a contradiction and is false.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-10-25
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Naming and Necessity.Kripke, Saul A.
Naming and Necessity.Kripke, Saul A.

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
100 ( #32,494 of 48,944 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
21 ( #30,505 of 48,944 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.