A new revisability paradox

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (3):308–318 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In a recent article, Mark Colyvan has criticized Jerrold Katz's attempt to show that Quinean holism is self-refuting. Katz argued that a Quinean epistemology incorporating a principle of the universal revisability of beliefs would have to hold that that and other principles of the system were both revisable and unrevisable. Colyvan rejects Katz's argument for failing to take into account the logic of belief revision. But granting the terms of debate laid down by Colyvan, the universal revisability principle still commits Quineans to holding that one belief is both revisable and unrevisable: the belief that some beliefs are revisable.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,139

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On inconsistent entities. A reply to Colyvan.Tommaso Piazza & Francesco Piazza - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 150 (2):301 - 311.
Infallibility Naturalized: Reply to Hoffmann.T. Parent - 2013 - Dialectica 67 (3):353-358.
The revisability paradox.Jonathan Adler - 2003 - Philosophical Forum 34 (3-4):383–390.
Two dogmatists.Charles Pigden - 1987 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 30 (1 & 2):173 – 193.
A Quinean definition of synonymy.Peter Pagin - 2001 - Erkenntnis 55 (1):7-32.
Believing in language.Susan Dwyer & Paul M. Pietroski - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (3):338-373.
Naturalism and the paradox of revisability.Mark Colyvan - 2006 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (1):1–11.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
62 (#245,984)

6 months
5 (#441,012)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Daniel Y. Elstein
University of Leeds

Citations of this work

Against Reflective Equilibrium for Logical Theorizing.Jack Woods - 2019 - Australasian Journal of Logic 16 (7):319.
A New Anti-Expertise Dilemma.Thomas Raleigh - 2021 - Synthese (3-4):1-19.
Katz’s revisability paradox dissolved.Allard Tamminga & Sander Verhaegh - 2013 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (4):771-784.
Is Everything Revisable?Peter Baumann - 2017 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 4:349-357.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Word and Object.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1960 - Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism.W. Quine - 1951 - [Longmans, Green].
From a Logical Point of View.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1953 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Word and Object.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1960 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 17 (2):278-279.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism.W. V. O. Quine - 1951 - In Robert B. Talisse & Scott F. Aikin (eds.), The Pragmatism Reader: From Peirce Through the Present. Princeton University Press. pp. 202-220.

View all 14 references / Add more references