Abstract
Is logical revision possible? A number of arguments challenge that this is the case, raising considerations based on the unchanging structure of the world, the meaning of logical constants, and the need for a logic in the process of logical revision. In this paper, I resist these arguments and critically assess the associated traditional conception that takes logic to be universal, unchangeable, and necessary. I argue that this conception faces significant challenges and offer the outline of an empiricist alternative that accommodates the intelligibility and possibility of logical revision.