Understanding the Revisability Thesis

in Grazer Philosophische Studien
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.

Help

 

Have Institutional Access?

Login with your institution. Any other coaching guidance?

Connect

W. V. Quine famously claimed that no statement is immune to revision. This thesis has had a profound impact on twentieth century philosophy, and it still occupies centre stage in many contemporary debates. However, despite its importance it is not clear how it should be interpreted. The author shows that the thesis is in fact ambiguous between three substantially different theses. She illustrates the importance of clarifying it by assessing its use in the debate against the existence of a priori knowledge. She shows how the three different readings of the thesis can be used to generate three substantially different and philosophically significant arguments against the a priori. The author further challenges each one of these arguments against the a priori.

Sections
References
  • Bonjour Laurence 1998. In Defense of Pure Reason. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Casullo Albert 1988. “Revisability, Reliabilism, and A Priori Knowledge.” Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 49187 213.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Casullo Albert 2003. A Priori Justification. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Chalmers David 2011. “Revisability and Conceptual Change in ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’.” Journal of Philosophy 108387415.

  • Devitt Michael 1998. “Naturalism and the A Priori.” Philosophical Studies 924565.

  • Donnellan Keith 1977. “The Contingent A Priori and Rigid Designators”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy II1227.

  • Erwin Edward 2011. “Evidence-Based Psychotherapy: Values and the A Priori.” In: What a Place for the A Priori? Edited by Shaffer Michael J. and Veber Michael L. Chicago IL: Open Court.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Giaquinto Marcus 1996. “Non-Analytic Conceptual Knowledge.” Mind 105249268.

  • Glock Hans-Johann Glüer Kathrin and Keil Geert (eds.) 2003. Fifty Years of Quine’s ‘Two Dogmas’. Grazer Philosophische Studien 66. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Grice H.P. and Strawson Peter F. 1956. “In Defense of a Dogma.” The Philosophical Review 65141158.

  • Jeshion Robin 2001. “Donnellan on Neptune.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research63111135.

  • Katz Jerrold 1998. Realistic Rationality. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

  • Kitcher Philip 1980. “A Priori Knowledge.” The Philosophical Review 893 23.

  • Kitcher Philip 1984. The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Kripke Saul 1980. Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  • Pollock John L. 1974. Knowledge and Justification . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Putnam Hilary 1975. “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” In his Mind Language and Reality; Philosophical Papers Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press215271.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Quine W.V. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” The Philosophical Review 602043.

  • Rey George 1998. “A Naturalistic A Priori.” Philosophical Studies 922543.

  • Sturgeon Scott 2014. “Pollock on Defeasible Reasons.” Philosophical Studies 169105 118 .

  • Summerfield Donna M. 1991. “Modest A Priori Knowledge.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 513966.

  • Sumner L.W. and Woods John 1969. “Introduction.” In: Necessary Truths Edited by Sumner L.W. and Woods John Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel317.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Index Card
Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 106 91 6
Full Text Views 218 215 1
PDF Downloads 15 15 1
EPUB Downloads 5 5 0