David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 68 (3):381 - 391 (2008)
To answer the question of whether mathematics needs new axioms, it seems necessary to say what role axioms actually play in mathematics. A first guess is that they are inherently obvious statements that are used to guarantee the truth of theorems proved from them. However, this may neither be possible nor necessary, and it doesn’t seem to fit the historical facts. Instead, I argue that the role of axioms is to systematize uncontroversial facts that mathematicians can accept from a wide variety of philosophical positions. Once the axioms are generally accepted, mathematicians can expend their energies on proving theorems instead of arguing philosophy. Given this account of the role of axioms, I give four criteria that axioms must meet in order to be accepted. Penelope Maddy has proposed a similar view in Naturalism in Mathematics, but she suggests that the philosophical questions bracketed by adopting the axioms can in fact be ignored forever. I contend that these philosophical arguments are in fact important, and should ideally be resolved at some point, but I concede that their resolution is unlikely to affect the ordinary practice of mathematics. However, they may have effects in the margins of mathematics, including with regards to the controversial “large cardinal axioms” Maddy would like to support.
|Keywords||Philosophy Logic Ethics Ontology Epistemology Philosophy|
|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
Penelope Maddy (1997). Naturalism in Mathematics. Oxford University Press.
John P. Burgess & Gideon A. Rosen (1997). A Subject with No Object: Strategies for Nominalistic Interpretation of Mathematics. Oxford University Press.
Paul Benacerraf (1973). Mathematical Truth. Journal of Philosophy 70 (19):661-679.
Alan Hájek, Interpretations of Probability. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Øystein Linnebo (2006). Epistemological Challenges to Mathematical Platonism. Philosophical Studies 129 (3):545-574.
Citations of this work BETA
Joshua Shepherd & James Justus (2015). X-Phi and Carnapian Explication. Erkenntnis 80 (2):381-402.
Similar books and articles
Penelope Maddy (2011). Defending the Axioms: On the Philosophical Foundations of Set Theory. Oxford University Press.
W. W. Tait (2001). Beyond the Axioms: The Question of Objectivity in Mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica 9 (1):21-36.
Krzysztof Wójtowicz (2006). Independence and Justification in Mathematics. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 91 (1):349-373.
Penelope Maddy (1984). New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:427 - 448.
A. S. Troelstra (1975). Axioms for Intuitionistic Mathematics Incompatible with Classical Logic. Mathematisch Instituut.
Charles Sayward (2005). Why Axiomatize Arithmetic? Sorites 16:54-61.
Alan Baker (2003). The Indispensability Argument and Multiple Foundations for Mathematics. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (210):49–67.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads280 ( #5,801 of 1,781,305 )
Recent downloads (6 months)94 ( #10,937 of 1,781,305 )
How can I increase my downloads?