Contraction and revision

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

Abstract

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

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-04-19

Downloads
443 (#19,256)

6 months
35 (#31,584)

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?