David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The Quine/Putnam indispensability argument is regarded by many as the chief argument for the existence of platonic objects. We argue that this argument cannot establish what its proponents intend. The form of our argument is simple. Suppose indispensability to science is the only good reason for believing in the existence of platonic objects. Either the dispensability of mathematical objects to science can be demonstrated and, hence, there is no good reason for believing in the existence of platonic objects, or their dispensability cannot be demonstrated and, hence, there is no good reason for believing in the existence of mathematical objects which are genuinely platonic. Therefore, indispensability, whether true or false, does not support platonism. Mathematical platonists claim that at least some of the objects which are the subject matter of pure mathematics (e.g. numbers, sets, groups) actually exist. Furthermore, they claim that these objects differ radically from the concrete objects (trees, cats, stars, molecules) which inhabit the material world. We take the standard platonistic position to include the claim that platonic objects lack spatio-temporal location and causal powers. Many (perhaps most) mathematical platonists subscribe to this view.1 But some who call themselves (or might be called) mathematical platonists..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David Liggins (2008). Quine, Putnam, and the 'Quine-Putnam' Indispensability Argument. Erkenntnis 68 (1):113 - 127.
Sam Baron (2013). Can Indispensability‐Driven Platonists Be (Serious) Presentists? Theoria 79 (3):153-173.
Patrick S. Dieveney (2007). Dispensability in the Indispensability Argument. Synthese 157 (1):105 - 128.
Mary Leng (2010). Mathematics and Reality. OUP Oxford.
Mary Leng (2005). Platonism and Anti-Platonism: Why Worry? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (1):65 – 84.
Russell Marcus (2007). Numbers Without Science. Dissertation, The Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York
William J. Melanson (2011). Reassessing the Epistemological Challenge to Mathematical Platonism. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (3):295-304.
A. Baker (2003). Does the Existence of Mathematical Objects Make a Difference? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (2):246 – 264.
Charles Parsons (2008). Mathematical Thought and its Objects. Cambridge University Press.
Richard Pettigrew (2012). Indispensability Arguments and Instrumental Nominalism. Review of Symbolic Logic 5 (4):687-709.
Charles Chihara (2010). New Directions for Nominalist Philosophers of Mathematics. Synthese 176 (2):153 - 175.
Joe Morrison (2012). Evidential Holism and Indispensability Arguments. Erkenntnis 76 (2):263-278.
Russell Marcus (2007). Structuralism, Indispensability, and the Access Problem. Facta Philosophica 9 (1):203-211.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads47 ( #92,379 of 1,911,604 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #179,609 of 1,911,604 )
How can I increase my downloads?