Online research in philosophy

What is perception doing in mathematical reasoning? To address this question, I discuss the role of perception in geometric reasoning. Perception of the shape properties of concrete diagrams provides, I argue, a surrogate consciousness of the shape properties of the abstract geometric objects depicted in the diagrams. Some of what perception is not doing in mathematical reasoning is also discussed. I take issue with both Parsons and Maddy. Parsons claims that we perceive a certain type of abstract object. Maddy claims (at least at one time claimed) that perception provides the basis for intuition of mathematical sets. 1 Mathematical reasoning with diagrams 2 Do we perceive abstract objects? 3 Do we perceive mathematical sets?

Molecular biologists and biochemists often use diagrams to present hypotheses. Analysis of diagrams shows that their content can be expressed with linguistic representations. Why do biologists use visual representations instead? One reason is simple comprehensibility: some diagrams present information which is readily understood from the diagram format, but which would not be comprehensible if the same information was expressed linguistically. But often diagrams are used even when concise, comprehensible linguistic alternatives are available. I explain this phenomenon by showing why diagrammatic representation is especially well suited for a particular kind of explanation common in molecular biology and biochemistry: namely, functional analysis, in which a capacity of the system is explained in terms of capacities of its component parts.

.  In logic, diagrams have been used for a very long time. Nevertheless philosophers and logicians are not quite clear about the logical status of diagrammatical representations. Fact is that there is a close relationship between particular visual (resp. graphical) properties of diagrams and logical properties. This is why the representation of the four categorical propositions by different diagram systems allows a deeper insight into the relations of the logical square. In this paper I want to give some examples.

This article suggests a novel way to advance a current debate in the philosophy of mathematics. The debate concerns the role of diagrams and visual reasoning in proofs—which I take to concern the criteria of legitimate representation of mathematical thought. Drawing on the so-called ‘maverick’ approach to philosophy of mathematics, I turn to mathematical practice itself to adjudicate in this debate, and in particular to category theory, because there (a) diagrams obviously play a major role, and (b) category theory itself addresses questions of representation and information preservation over mappings. We obtain a mathematical answer to a philosophical question: a good mathematical representation can be characterized as a category theoretic natural transformation.

This article discusses the role of diagrams in mathematical reasoning in the light of a case study in analysis. In the example presented certain combinatorial expressions were first found by using diagrams. In the published proofs the pictures were replaced by reasoning about permutation groups. This article argues that, even though the diagrams are not present in the published papers, they still play a role in the formulation of the proofs. It is shown that they play a role in concept formation as well as representations of proofs. In addition we note that 'visualization' is used in two different ways. In the first sense 'visualization' denotes our inner mental pictures, which enable us to see that a certain fact holds, whereas in the other sense 'visualization' denotes a diagram or representation of something.

Sociologists, philosophers and historians of science are gradually recognizing the importance of visual representation. This is part of a more general movement away from a theory-centric view of science and towards an interest in practical aspects of observation and experimentation. Rather than treating science as a matter of demonstrating the logical connection between theoretical and empirical statements, an increasing number of investigations are examining how scientists compose and use diagrams, graphs, photographs, micrographs, maps, charts, and related visual displays. This paper focuses on diagrams in biology, and tries to demonstrate how diagrams are an integral part of the production of scientific knowledge. In order to disclose some of the distinctive practical and analytical uses of diagrams, the paper contrasts the way diagrams and photographs are used in biological texts. Both diagrams and photographs are shown to be “constructions” that separately and together mediate the investigation of scientific phenoman.

This article puts forward the notion of “evolving diagram” as an important case of mathematical diagram. An evolving diagram combines, through a dynamic graphical enrichment, the representation of an object and the representation of a piece of reasoning based on the representation of that object. Evolving diagrams can be illustrated in particular with category-theoretic diagrams (hereafter “diagrams*”) in the context of “sketch theory,” a branch of modern category theory. It is argued that sketch theory provides a diagrammatic* theory of diagrams*, that it helps to overcome the rivalry between set theory and category theory as a general semantical framework, and that it suggests a more flexible understanding of the opposition between formal proofs and diagrammatic reasoning. Thus, the aim of the paper is twofold. First, it claims that diagrams* provide a clear example of evolving diagrams, and shed light on them as a general phenomenon. Second, in return, it uses sketches, understood as evolving diagrams, to show how diagrams* in general should be re-evaluated positively.

We advance a theoretical framework which combines recent insights of research in logic, psychology, and formal semantics, on the nature of diagrammatic representation and reasoning. In particular, we wish to explain the varied efficacy of reasoning and representing with diagrams. In general we consider diagrammatic representations to be restricted in expressive power, and we wish to explain efficacy of reasoning with diagrams via the semantical and computational properties of such restricted `languages'. Connecting these foundational insights (from semantics and complexity theory) to the psychology of reasoning with diagrams requires us to develop the notion of the {\it availability} (to an agent) of {\it constraints} operating within representation systems, as a consequence of their direct semantic interpretation. Thus we offer a number of fundamental definitions as well as a research programme which aligns current efforts in the logical and psychological analysis of diagrammatic representation systems.

In this paper, I aim to identify Peirce?s great contribution to logical diagrams and its limit.Peirce is the first person who believed that the same logical status can be given to diagrams as to symbolic systems.Even though this belief led him to invent his own graphical system, Existential Graphs, the success or failure of this system does not determine the value of Peirce?s general insights about logical diagrams.In order to make this point clear, I will show that Peirce?s revolutionary ideas about diagrams not only overcame some important defects of Venn diagrams but opened a new horizon for logical diagrams.Finally, I will point out where Peirce?s new horizon for logical diagrams stopped and will claim that this limit is mainly responsible for the discrepancy between Peirce?s and others? estimates of his contribution to logical diagrams.