Online research in philosophy

This paper considers the nature and role of axioms from the point of view of the current debates about the status of category theory and, in particular, in relation to the “algebraic” approach to mathematical structuralism. My aim is to show that category theory has as much to say about an algebraic consideration of meta-mathematical analyses of logical structure as it does about mathematical analyses of mathematical structure, without either requiring an assertory mathematical or meta-mathematical background theory as a “foundation”, or turning meta-mathematical analyses of logical concepts into “philosophical” ones. Thus, we can use category theory to frame an interpretation of mathematics according to which we can be structuralists all the way down.

Despite a vast philosophical literature on the epistemology of mathematics and much speculation about how, in principle, knowledge of this domain is possible, little attention has been paid to the psychological findings and theories concerning the acquisition, comprehension and use of mathematical knowledge. This contrasts sharply with recent philosophical work on language where comparable issues and problems arise. One topic that is the center of debate in the study of mathematical cognition is the question of innateness. This paper critically examines the controversy.

Baker (2005) claims to provide an example of mathematical explanation of an empirical phenomenon which leads to ontological commitment to mathematical objects. This is meant to show that the positing of mathematical entities is necessary for satisfactory scientific explanations and thus that the application of mathematics to science can be used, at least in some cases, to support mathematical realism. In this paper I show that the example of explanation Baker considers can actually be given without postulating mathematical objects and thus cannot be used by the mathematical realist. I also show that, despite this, mathematics keeps playing an important methodological role in the explanation and does not reduce to a merely computational or descriptive framework.

Current versions of nominalism in the philosophy of mathematics face a significant problem to understand mathematical knowledge. They are unable to characterize mathematical knowledge as knowledge of the objects mathematical theories are taken to be about. Oswaldo Chateaubriand’s insightful reformulation of Platonism (Chateaubriand 2005) avoids this problem by advancing a broader conception of knowledge as justified truth beyond a reasonable doubt, and by introducing a suitable characterization of logical form in which the relevant mathematical facts play an important role in the truth of the corresponding mathematical propositions. In this paper, I contrast Chateaubriand’s proposal with an agnostic form of nominalism that is able to accommodate mathematical knowledge without the commitment to mathematical facts.

In this paper, I introduce and examine the notion of “mathematical engineering” and its impact on mathematical change. Mathematical engineering is an important part of contemporary mathematics and it roughly consists of the “construction” and development of various machines, probes and instruments used in numerous mathematical fields. As an example of such constructions, I briefly present the basic steps and properties of homology theory. I then try to show that this aspect of contemporary mathematics has important consequences on our conception of mathematical knowledge, in particular mathematical growth.

The notion of innateness plays a significant role in debates in philosophy, psychology, linguistics, ethology, anthropology, behavioural economics, developmental biology, and various other disciplines. These debates are often about whether some particular trait is or is not innate. Someone is a nativist about trait T if he claims that T is innate, and he is an anti- nativist about T if he claims that T is not innate. From the fact that someone is a nativist about a particular trait it does not follow that he is also a nativist about other traits.

What is the nature of mathematical knowledge? Is it anything like scientific knowledge or is it sui generis? How do we acquire it? Should we believe what mathematicians themselves tell us about it? Are mathematical concepts innate or acquired? Eight new essays offer answers to these and many other questions. Written by some of the world's leading philosophers of mathematics, psychologists, and mathematicians, Mathematical Knowledge gives a lively sense of the current state of debate in this fascinating field. Contents 1. Mary Leng: Introduction 2. Michael Potter: What is the problem of mathematical knowledge? 3. Tim Gowers: Mathematics, memory, and mental arithmetic 4. Alan Baker: Is there a problem of induction for mathematics? 5. Marinella Cappelletti and Valeria Giardino: The cognitive basis of mathematical knowledge 6. Mary Leng: What's there to know? A fictionalist account of mathematical knowledge 7. Mark Colyvan: Mathematical recreation versus mathematical knowledge 8. Alexander Paseau: Scientific platonism 9. Crispin Wright: On quantifying into predicate position: Steps towards a (new)tralist position.

Suggests that the recent emphasis on Benacerraf's access problem locates the peculiarity of mathematical knowledge in the wrong place. Instead we should focus on the sense in which mathematical concepts are or might be "armchair concepts" – concepts about which non-trivial knowledge is obtainable a priori.

Current approaches to mathematical cognition divide into two major camps. Cognitive studies try to render mathematical intuition—the faculty that gives us immediate and authoritative knowledge of mathematics—respectable on scientific grounds. Cultural studies, on the other hand, regard mathematics as a form of cultural achievement, like literature or architecture. Both positions have their own shortcomings. While cognitive approaches are limited in scope and fail to account for complex mathematical developments, cultural approaches are short of detailed answers as to what enables us to participate in a common mathematical practice. This situation evinces a need to balance a cognitive perspective on mathematical culture against a cultural perspective on mathematical cognition. According to current behavioral and neuropsychological evidence, the complex, uniquely human, culture-specific mathematical skills exhibited by human adults rest on a set of psychological and neural mechanisms that (a) are shared by other animals, and (b) emerge early in human development, continue to function throughout the lifespan, and thus are common to infants, children and adults. It has been proposed that these common and evolutionary ancient mechanisms account for humans’ basic “number sense” and form the building blocks for the development of more sophisticated numerical skills. Indeed, infants leave animals far behind in their numerical sophistication. What boosts this developmental difference? How do human beings acquire mathematical concepts such as the concept of natural number? First, I specify the representations that are the building blocks for the target concepts. Second, I describe how the target concepts differ from these basic representations. And finally, I characterize the learning mechanisms that enable the construction of the target concepts out of those prior representations. I argue that the power of the resulting conceptual system derives from the combination and integration of previously distinct representational systems, capitalizing on the human capacity for creating and using external symbols: human beings can only develop their distinct conceptual abilities due to their original embeddedness in both the physical world and, most importantly, in a rich milieu of cultural resources. Thus, an important developmental source of number representations, in addition to the preverbal systems mentioned above, is the representation of numbers within natural language.

When the traditional distinction between a mathematical concept and a mathematical intuition is tested against examples taken from the real history of mathematics one can observe the following interesting phenomena. First, there are multiple examples where concepts and intuitions do not well fit together; some of these examples can be described as “poorly conceptualised intuitions” while some others can be described as “poorly intuited concepts”. Second, the historical development of mathematics involves two kinds of corresponding processes: poorly conceptualised intuitions are further conceptualised while poorly intuited concepts are further intuited. In this paper I study this latter process in mathematics during the twentieth century and, more specifically, show the role of set theory and category theory in this process. I use this material for defending the following claims: (1) mathematical intuitions are subject to historical development just like mathematical concepts; (2) mathematical intuitions continue to play their traditional role in today's mathematics and will plausibly do so in the foreseeable future. This second claim implies that the popular view, according to which modern mathematical concepts, unlike their more traditional predecessors, cannot be directly intuited, is not justified.