Burgess's `scientific' arguments for the existence of mathematical objects
Philosophia Mathematica 14:318-337 (2006)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDavid Liggins (2008). Quine, Putnam, and the 'Quine-Putnam' Indispensability Argument. Erkenntnis 68 (1):113 - 127.
John P. Burgess (1992). Review: Constructibility and Mathematical Existence by Charles S. Chihara. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 101:916-918.
David Liggins (2007). Anti-Nominalism Reconsidered. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (226):104–111.
Charles Parsons (2008). Mathematical Thought and its Objects. Cambridge University Press.
Mary Leng (2005). Platonism and Anti-Platonism: Why Worry? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (1):65 – 84.
Mary Leng (2005). Revolutionary Fictionalism: A Call to Arms. Philosophia Mathematica 13 (3):277-293.
Chihara Charles (2006). Burgess's ‘Scientific’ Arguments for the Existence of Mathematical Objects. Philosophia Mathematica 14 (3):318-337.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-05-24Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
