Graduate studies at Western
Logique Et Analyse 45 (179-180):283-297 (2002)
|Abstract||Some theorists are bewildered by the effectiveness of mathematical concepts. For example, Steiner attempts to show that there can be no rational explanation of mathematical applicability in physics. Others (notably Penrose) are concerned primarily with the unexpected effectiveness within mathematics. Both views consist of two parts: a puzzle and a positive solution. I defend their paradoxical parts against the sceptics who do not believe that the very problem of effectiveness is a genuine one. Utilising Horwich’s theory of surprise, I argue that the central cases of effectiveness discussed by Steiner and Penrose are indeed surprising and call for an explanation.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stewart Shapiro (1980). On the Notion of Effectiveness. History and Philosophy of Logic 1 (1-2):209-230.
M. Lange (2010). What Are Mathematical Coincidences (and Why Does It Matter)? Mind 119 (474):307-340.
Pablo E. Navarro & José Juan Moreso (1997). Applicability and Effectiveness of Legal Norms. Law and Philosophy 16 (2):201 - 219.
E. P. & J. J. (1997). Applicability and Effectiveness of Legal Norms. Law and Philosophy 16 (2):201-219.
Steven French (2000). The Reasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics: Partial Structures and the Application of Group Theory to Physics. Synthese 125 (1-2):103 - 120.
Marvin Chester (2002). Is Symmetry Identity? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (2):111 – 124.
M. Ross Quillian (1994). A Content-Independent Explanation of Sciences Effectiveness. Philosophy of Science 61 (3):429-448.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #154,824 of 738,241 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,269 of 738,241 )
How can I increase my downloads?