Full Idea
If we held, say, 'All unmarried men are unmarried' as absolutely immune from revision, why would this make it true?
Gist of Idea
If a tautology is immune from revision, why would that make it true?
Source
Hilary Putnam (Meaning and the Moral Sciences [1978], Pt Four)
Book Reference
Putnam,Hilary: 'Meaning and the Moral Sciences' [RKP 1981], p.137
A Reaction
A very nice question. Like most American philosophers, Putnam accepts Quine's attack on the unrevisability of analytic truths. His point here is that defenders of analytic truths are probably desperate to preserve basic truths, but it won't work.