Contraction and revision

Australasian Journal of Logic 13 (3):58-77 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
STACAR-4
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-04-19
View other versions
Added to PP index
2016-04-19

Total views
380 ( #17,003 of 2,448,958 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #40,975 of 2,448,958 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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