Contraction and revision

Australasian Journal of Logic 13 (3):58-77 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX


An important question for proponents of non-contractive approaches to paradox is why contraction fails. Zardini offers an answer, namely that paradoxical sentences exhibit a kind of instability. I elaborate this idea using revision theory, and I argue that while instability does motivate failures of contraction, it equally motivates failure of many principles that non-contractive theorists want to maintain.

Author's Profile

Shawn Standefer
National Taiwan University


Added to PP

580 (#23,704)

6 months
78 (#48,379)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?