David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 156 (3):321-337 (2011)
There is a recent and growing trend in philosophy that involves deferring to the claims of certain disciplines outside of philosophy, such as mathematics, the natural sciences, and linguistics. According to this trend— deferentialism , as we will call it—certain disciplines outside of philosophy make claims that have a decisive bearing on philosophical disputes, where those claims are more epistemically justified than any philosophical considerations just because those claims are made by those disciplines. Deferentialists believe that certain longstanding philosophical problems can be swiftly and decisively dispatched by appeal to disciplines other than philosophy. In this paper we will argue that such an attitude of uncritical deference to any non-philosophical discipline is badly misguided. With reference to the work of John Burgess and David Lewis, we consider deference to mathematics. We show that deference to mathematics is implausible and that main arguments for it fail. With reference to the work of Michael Blome-Tillmann, we consider deference to linguistics. We show that his arguments appealing to deference to linguistics are unsuccessful. We then show that naturalism does not entail deferentialism and that naturalistic considerations even motivate some anti-deferentialist views. Finally, we set out deferentialism’s failings and present our own anti-deferentialist approach to philosophical inquiry
|Keywords||Methodology Naturalism Mathematics Linguistics Burgess Lewis Blome-Tillmann|
|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
Penelope Maddy (1997). Naturalism in Mathematics. Oxford University Press.
Christopher Pincock (2009). Towards a Philosophy of Applied Mathematics. In Otávio Bueno & Øystein Linnebo (eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Mathematics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Alan Baker (2010). No Reservations Required? Defending Anti-Nominalism. Studia Logica 96 (2):127-139.
David Liggins (2007). Anti-Nominalism Reconsidered. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (226):104–111.
Mary Leng (2005). Revolutionary Fictionalism: A Call to Arms. Philosophia Mathematica 13 (3):277-293.
David Corfield (2003). Towards a Philosophy of Real Mathematics. Cambridge University Press.
Alexander Paseau (2005). Naturalism in Mathematics and the Authority of Philosophy. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (2):377-396.
Gábor Forrai (2010). What Mathematicians' Claims Mean : In Defense of Hermeneutic Fictionalism. Hungarian Philosophical Review 54 (4):191-203.
Feng Ye (2011). Naturalism and Abstract Entities. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (2):129-146.
Alexander Paseau (2008). Naturalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Alan Baker (2003). The Indispensability Argument and Multiple Foundations for Mathematics. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):49–67.
Carlo Cellucci (1996). Mathematical Logic: What has It Done for the Philosophy of Mathematics? In Piergiorgio Odifreddi (ed.), Kreiseliana. About and Around Georg Kreisel, pp. 365-388. A K Peters.
Added to index2010-09-13
Total downloads210 ( #2,575 of 1,103,039 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #16,301 of 1,103,039 )
How can I increase my downloads?