Online research in philosophy

The last few decades have witnessed a broadening of the philosophy of mathematics, beyond narrowly foundational and metaphysical issues, and towards the inclusion of more general questions concerning "mathematical methodology" and "mathematical practice" (a development parallel to an earlier broadening of the philosophy of science). There is now widespread, and growing, interest in topics such as: concept formation and conceptual change in mathematics, the use of heuristics in mathematical research, the applicability of mathematics, and even sociological or anthropological questions concerning the mathematical community. Part of this broadening, although a part that remains relatively close to foundational and metaphysical issues, is the turn towards a "new epistemology" for mathematics. The latter includes the study of topics such as: the role of visualization in mathematics, the use of computers in proving mathematical theorems, and the notion of explanation as applied to mathematics.1 The present paper is a contribution to this new epistemology. More particularly, it is an attempt to bring into sharper focus, and to argue for the relevance of, two related themes: "structural reasoning" and "mathematical understanding". As the notion of understanding is vague and slippery in general, as well as very loaded in philosophical discussions of the sciences, the latter label has to be handled with care, though. It will have to be clarified what, if anything (or anything reasonably precise), is to be meant by "understanding" in connection with mathematics. Similarly, while talking about "structural" reasoning in mathematics may be suggestive, that term too requires further elaboration. My clarifications and elaborations will be tied to a specific historical figure and period: Richard Dedekind and his contributions to algebraic number theory in the nineteenth century. This is not an incidental choice; Dedekind's case is particularly pertinent in this context, as I also hope to establish in this paper. I will proceed as follows: In the first section, I will provide a brief summary of Dedekind's work on the foundations of mathematics, as well as of its usual perception in....

Examples are presented of Aristotle’s use of non-idealized mathematics. Distinctions Husserl makes in Crisis help to delineate the features of this empiricalmathematics, which include the non-persistence of mathematical aspects of things and the selective application of mathematical traits and proper accidents. In antiquity, non-abstracted mathematics was involved with practical sciences that treat motion. The suggestion is made that these sciences were incorporated by Aristotle into natural philosophy without first being abstracted as pure mathematics—a state of affairs not envisioned by Husserl, for whom science recast natural ontology by means of the idealization of pure mathematics. The relation of empirical mathematics to life-world ontology is considered.

In this book, which is both a philosophical and historiographical study, the author investigates the fallibility and the rationality of mathematics by means of rational reconstructions of developments in mathematics. The initial chapters are devoted to a critical discussion of Lakatos' philosophy of mathematics. In the remaining chapters several episodes in the history of mathematics are discussed, such as the appearance of deduction in Greek mathematics and the transition from Eighteenth-Century to Nineteenth-Century analysis. The author aims at developing a notion of mathematical rationality that agrees with the historical facts. A modified version of Lakatos' methodology is proposed. The resulting constructions show that mathematical knowledge is fallible, but that its fallibility is remarkably weak.

This paper contains answers to the following Five questions, posed by the editors are answered: (1) Why were you initially drawn to the foundations of mathematics and/or the philosophy of mathematics? (2) What example(s) from your work (or the work of others) illustrates the use of mathematics for philosophy? (3) What is the proper role of philosophy of mathematics in relation to logic, foundations of mathematics, the traditional core areas of mathematics, and science? (4) What do you consider the most neglected topics and/or contributions in late 20th century philosophy of mathematics? (5) What are the most important open problems in the philosophy of mathematics and what are the prospects for progress?

The aim of this paper is to present and discuss the philosophical views concerning mathematics of the founders of the so called Warsaw Mathematical School, i.e., Wacław Sierpiński, Zygmunt Janiszewski and Stefan Mazurkiewicz. Their interest in the philosophy of mathematics and their philosophical papers will be considered. We shall try to answer the question whether their philosophical views influenced their proper mathematical investigations. Their views towards set theory and its rôle in mathematics will be emphasized.

Translator's introduction -- Fundamental questions of geometry -- The decidability requirement -- The origin of the concept of number -- Implicit definition and the proper grounding of mathematics -- Rigid bodies in geometry -- Prelude to geometry : the essential ideas -- Physical and mathematical geometry -- Natural geometry -- The concept of the differential -- Reflections on the proper grounding of mathematics I -- Concepts and proofs in mathematics -- Dimension and space in mathematics -- Reflections on the proper grounding of mathematics II -- The axiomatic method in modern mathematics.

One recent trend in the philosophy of mathematics has been to approach the central epistemological and metaphysical issues concerning mathematics from the perspective of the applications of mathematics to describing the world, especially within the context of empirical science. A second area of activity is where philosophy of mathematics intersects with foundational issues in mathematics, including debates over the choice of set-theoretic axioms, and over whether category theory, for example, may provide an alternative foundation for mathematics. My central claim is that these latter issues are of direct relevance to philosophical arguments connected to the applicability of mathematics. In particular, the possibility of there being distinct alternative foundations for mathematics blocks the standard argument from the indispensable role of mathematics in science to the existence of specific mathematical objects.

Most contemporary philosophy of mathematics focuses on a small segment of mathematics, mainly the natural numbers and foundational disciplines like set theory. While there are good reasons for this approach, in this paper I will examine the philosophical problems associated with the area of mathematics known as applied mathematics. Here mathematicians pursue mathematical theories that are closely connected to the use of mathematics in the sciences and engineering. This area of mathematics seems to proceed using different methods and standards when compared to much of mathematics. I argue that applied mathematics can contribute to the philosophy of mathematics and our understanding of mathematics as a whole.

In this article, I will discuss the relationship between mathematical intuition and mathematical visualization. I will argue that in order to investigate this relationship, it is necessary to consider mathematical activity as a complex phenomenon, which involves many different cognitive resources. I will focus on two kinds of danger in recurring to visualization and I will show that they are not a good reason to conclude that visualization is not reliable, if we consider its use in mathematical practice. Then, I will give an example of mathematical reasoning with a figure, and show that both visualization and intuition are involved. I claim that mathematical intuition depends on background knowledge and expertise, and that it allows to see the generality of the conclusions obtained by means of visualization.

Many scientific discoveries have depended on external diagrams or visualizations. Many scientists also report to use an internal mental representation or mental imagery to help them solve problems and reason. How do scientists connect these internal and external representations? We examined working scientists as they worked on external scientific visualizations. We coded the number and type of spatial transformations (mental operations that scientists used on internal or external representations or images) and found that there were a very large number of comparisons, either between different visualizations or between a visualization and the scientists’ internal mental representation. We found that when scientists compared visualization to visualization, the comparisons were based primarily on features. However, when scientists compared a visualization to their mental representation, they were attempting to align the two representations. We suggest that this alignment process is how scientists connect internal and external representations.