David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophia Mathematica 15 (1):54--78 (2007)
In the final chapter of their book A Subject With No Object, John Burgess and Gideon Rosen raise the question of the value of the nominalistic reconstructions of mathematics that have been put forward in recent years, asking specifically what this body of work is good for. The authors conclude that these reconstructions are all inferior to current versions of mathematics (or science) and make no advances in science. This paper investigates the reasoning that led to such a negative appraisal, and it produces a rebuttal to this reasoning. I am grateful to the following mathematicians who were kind enough to provide me with their thoughts about nonstandard analysis: Martin Davis, Laura Chihara, Ted Chihara, Steve Galovich, Bonnie Gold, and especially Roger Simons, whose comments about an earlier version of this paper were very helpful. Thanks also go to two referees for their useful suggestions and criticisms of an earlier version of this paper.
|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
Karin Katz & Mikhail Katz (2012). Stevin Numbers and Reality. Foundations of Science 17 (2):109-123.
Similar books and articles
Øystein Linnebo (2007). Burgess on Plural Logic and Set Theory. Philosophia Mathematica 15 (1):79-93.
John P. Burgess & Gideon A. Rosen (1997). A Subject with No Object: Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics. Oxford University Press.
Alan Baker (2010). No Reservations Required? Defending Anti-Nominalism. Studia Logica 96 (2):127-139.
Stewart Shapiro (1998). Review of J. P. Burgess and G. A. Rosen, A Subject with No Object: Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 39 (4):600-612.
David Liggins (2007). Anti-Nominalism Reconsidered. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (226):104–111.
Karin Katz & Mikhail Katz (2012). A Burgessian Critique of Nominalistic Tendencies in Contemporary Mathematics and its Historiography. Foundations of Science 17 (1):51-89.
Chihara Charles (2006). Burgess's ‘Scientific’ Arguments for the Existence of Mathematical Objects. Philosophia Mathematica 14 (3):318-337.
Michael D. Resnik (1999). Review of J. P. Burgess and G. A. Rosen, A Subject With No Object. Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics. [REVIEW] Noûs 33 (3):505–516.
Charles Parsons (1999). Review of J. P. Burgess and G. A. Rosen, A Subject With No Object. Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (1):391-394.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #65,569 of 1,696,514 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #343,026 of 1,696,514 )
How can I increase my downloads?