Online research in philosophy

One recent trend in the philosophy of mathematics has been to approach the central epistemological and metaphysical issues concerning mathematics from the perspective of the applications of mathematics to describing the world, especially within the context of empirical science. A second area of activity is where philosophy of mathematics intersects with foundational issues in mathematics, including debates over the choice of set-theoretic axioms, and over whether category theory, for example, may provide an alternative foundation for mathematics. My central claim is that these latter issues are of direct relevance to philosophical arguments connected to the applicability of mathematics. In particular, the possibility of there being distinct alternative foundations for mathematics blocks the standard argument from the indispensable role of mathematics in science to the existence of specific mathematical objects.

Examples are presented of Aristotle’s use of non-idealized mathematics. Distinctions Husserl makes in Crisis help to delineate the features of this empiricalmathematics, which include the non-persistence of mathematical aspects of things and the selective application of mathematical traits and proper accidents. In antiquity, non-abstracted mathematics was involved with practical sciences that treat motion. The suggestion is made that these sciences were incorporated by Aristotle into natural philosophy without first being abstracted as pure mathematics—a state of affairs not envisioned by Husserl, for whom science recast natural ontology by means of the idealization of pure mathematics. The relation of empirical mathematics to life-world ontology is considered.

I argue that we need not accept Quine's holistic conception of mathematics and empirical science. Specifically, I argue that we should reject Quine's holism for two reasons. One, his argument for this position fails to appreciate that the revision of the mathematics employed in scientific theories is often related to an expansion of the possibilities of describing the empirical world, and that this reveals that mathematics serves as a kind of rational framework for empirical theorizing. Two, this holistic conception does not clearly demarcate pure mathematics from applied mathematics. In arguing against Quine, I present a formal account of applied mathematics in which the mathematics employed in an empirical theory plays a role that is analogous to the epistemological role Kant assigned synthetic a priori propositions. According to this account, it is possible to insulate pure mathematics from empirical falsification, and there is a sense in which applied mathematics can also be labeled as a priori.

The 1990s could be called The Decade of Sociology in mathematics education. It was during those years that the sociology of mathematics became a core ingredient of discourse in mathematics education and the philosophy of mathematics and mathematics education. Unresolved questions and uncertainties have emerged out of this discourse that hinge on the key concept of social construction. More generally, what is at issue is the very idea of “the social”. Within the framework of the general problem of “the social”, we want to open a discussion of boundaries and margins in mathematics and mathematics education. By theorizing the divisions of purity and danger, we will be able to better understand the intersection of logic, mathematics, and thinking with gender, race, and class, and morals, ethics, and values in the classroom. The process of transforming the sociology of mathematics and the sociology of mind into pedagogical tools for mathematics educators and philosophers of education has already begun. One of the tasks before us is the development of a more profound and at the same time more practical grasp of “the social”. Our objective in this paper is to move ourselves and our readers in the direction of just such a grasp of the social.

Language suggestive of natural law ethics, similar to the Catholic understanding of ethical foundations, is prevalent in a number of disciplines. But it does not always issue in a full-blooded commitment to objective ethics, being undermined by relativist ethical currents. In law and politics, there is a robust conception of "human rights", but it has become somewhat detached from both the worth of persons in themselves and from duties. In education, talk of "values" imports ethical considerations but hints at a subjectivist view of them. In the psychology and sociology of drug use, ethically thin concepts of "harm minimisation" and "selfimage" dominate discussion and distract attention from the virtue of temperance and the training of character. A more forceful assertion of an ethics based on the worth of persons in these cases would be most desirable. Arguments against objectivity in the fundamentals may be replied to by examining the parallel between ethics and the discipline whose objectivity has been least challenged by relativist arguments, mathematics.

There is a parallel between the debate between Gottlob Frege and David Hilbert at the turn of the twentieth century and at least some aspects of the current controversy over whether category theory provides the proper framework for structuralism in the philosophy of mathematics. The main issue, I think, concerns the place and interpretation of meta-mathematics in an algebraic or structuralist approach to mathematics. Can meta-mathematics itself be understood in algebraic or structural terms? Or is it an exception to the slogan that mathematics is the science of structure?

This paper considers the role of mathematics in the process of acquiring new knowledge in physics and astronomy. The defining of the notions of continuum and discreteness in mathematics and the natural sciences is examined. The basic forms of representing the heuristic function of mathematics at theoretical and empirical levels of knowledge are studied: deducing consequences from the axiomatic system of theory, the method of generating mathematical hypotheses, “pure” proofs for the existence of objects and processes, mathematical modelling, the formation of mathematics on the basis of internal mathematical principles and the mathematical theory of experiment.

The last few decades have witnessed a broadening of the philosophy of mathematics, beyond narrowly foundational and metaphysical issues, and towards the inclusion of more general questions concerning "mathematical methodology" and "mathematical practice" (a development parallel to an earlier broadening of the philosophy of science). There is now widespread, and growing, interest in topics such as: concept formation and conceptual change in mathematics, the use of heuristics in mathematical research, the applicability of mathematics, and even sociological or anthropological questions concerning the mathematical community. Part of this broadening, although a part that remains relatively close to foundational and metaphysical issues, is the turn towards a "new epistemology" for mathematics. The latter includes the study of topics such as: the role of visualization in mathematics, the use of computers in proving mathematical theorems, and the notion of explanation as applied to mathematics.1 The present paper is a contribution to this new epistemology. More particularly, it is an attempt to bring into sharper focus, and to argue for the relevance of, two related themes: "structural reasoning" and "mathematical understanding". As the notion of understanding is vague and slippery in general, as well as very loaded in philosophical discussions of the sciences, the latter label has to be handled with care, though. It will have to be clarified what, if anything (or anything reasonably precise), is to be meant by "understanding" in connection with mathematics. Similarly, while talking about "structural" reasoning in mathematics may be suggestive, that term too requires further elaboration. My clarifications and elaborations will be tied to a specific historical figure and period: Richard Dedekind and his contributions to algebraic number theory in the nineteenth century. This is not an incidental choice; Dedekind's case is particularly pertinent in this context, as I also hope to establish in this paper. I will proceed as follows: In the first section, I will provide a brief summary of Dedekind's work on the foundations of mathematics, as well as of its usual perception in....

If mathematics is regarded as a science, then the philosophy of mathematics can be regarded as a branch of the philosophy of science, next to disciplines such as the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology. However, because of its subject matter, the philosophy of mathematics occupies a special place in the philosophy of science. Whereas the natural sciences investigate entities that are located in space and time, it is not at all obvious that this is also the case with respect to the objects that are studied in mathematics. In addition to that, the methods of investigation of mathematics differ markedly from the methods of investigation in the natural sciences. Whereas the latter acquire general knowledge using inductive methods, mathematical knowledge appears to be acquired in a different way, namely, by deduction from basic principles. The status of mathematical knowledge also appears to differ from the status of knowledge in the natural sciences. The theories of the natural sciences appear to be less certain and more open to revision than mathematical theories. For these reasons mathematics poses problems of a quite distinctive kind for philosophy. Therefore philosophers have accorded special attention to ontological and epistemological questions concerning mathematics.

Most contemporary philosophy of mathematics focuses on a small segment of mathematics, mainly the natural numbers and foundational disciplines like set theory. While there are good reasons for this approach, in this paper I will examine the philosophical problems associated with the area of mathematics known as applied mathematics. Here mathematicians pursue mathematical theories that are closely connected to the use of mathematics in the sciences and engineering. This area of mathematics seems to proceed using different methods and standards when compared to much of mathematics. I argue that applied mathematics can contribute to the philosophy of mathematics and our understanding of mathematics as a whole.