Online research in philosophy

Indispensability arguments purport to show that empirical data provide evidence for the existence of mathematical entities. In this paper we argue that indispensability arguments fail to show that empirical data bears on the mathematical. In order to show this we attempt to clarify what it is to be mathematical , and separate the question whether abstracta in general exist from whether distinctively mathematical abstracta exist. We introduce the notion of an ‘agnostified’ empirical theory as a heuristic device for clarifying the role of mathematical terminology in empirical theories. The special case of spaces is then briefly considered.

A view of the sources of mathematical knowledge is sketched which emphasizes the close connections between mathematical and empirical knowledge. A platonistic interpretation of mathematical discourse is adopted throughout. Two skeptical views are discussed and rejected. One of these, due to Maturana, is supposed to be based on biological considerations. The other, due to Dummett, is derived from a Wittgensteinian position in the philosophy of language. The paper ends with an elaboration of Gödel's analogy between the mathematician and the physicist.

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.

It is often assumed that empiricism in the philosophy of mathematics was laid to rest by Frege’s stinging attack on Mill. I will argue that empiricism is alive and well and able to deal with almost everything that’s thrown at it. In particular, I will show how the brand of empiricism I subscribe to is able to give a satisfying account of mathematical knowledge. This brand of mathematical empiricism has a rather curious feature though: some parts of mathematics (e.g., analysis, modern algebra, ZFC set theory) are taken to be theories about which we have genuine mathematical knowledge, while others (e.g., set theory with large cardinal axioms) are (following Quine) treated as “mathematical recreation”. I will defend this demarcation against some recent criticisms from Mary Leng.

The philosophy of mathematics of the last few decades is usually distinguished into mainstream and maverick.1 The mainstream philosophy of mathematics considers mathematics as a static body of knowledge; it is mainly concerned with the question of the justification of mathematical knowledge; it holds that there is an absolutely certain, or at least fairly reliable, foundation for mathematics; it considers mathematical logic as a canon for the philosophy of mathematics; it assumes that a detailed account of mathematical practice would be desirable but not really essential; it generally sets itself within the framework of analytic philosophy. The maverick philosophy of mathematics considers mathematics as a dynamic body of knowledge; it is mainly concerned with the question of the growth of mathematical knowledge, including the dynamics of mathematical discovery; it holds that there is no absolutely certain foundation for mathematics; it considers mathematical logic very useful to show the limitations of the mainstream philosophy of mathematics by means of the limitative results, but inadequate to deal with the question of the growth of mathematical knowledge; it assumes that only a detailed analysis of mathematical practice could lead to a philosophy of mathematics worth its name; it generally sets itself outside the framework of analytic philosophy. The mainstream philosophy of mathematics consists of the three big foundational schools of the first few decades of the twentieth century, namely logicism (Frege, Russell), formalism (Hilbert), intuitionism (Brouwer, Heyting), and the positions which ensued from them in the second half of the twentieth..

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.

This book draws its inspiration from Hilbert, Wittgenstein, Cavaillès and Lakatos and is designed to reconfigure contemporary philosophy of mathematics by making the growth of knowledge rather than its foundations central to the study of mathematical rationality, and by analyzing the notion of growth in historical as well as logical terms. Not a mere compendium of opinions, it is organised in dialogical forms, with each philosophical thesis answered by one or more historical case studies designed to support, complicate or question it. The first part of the book examines the role of scientific theory and empirical fact in the growth of mathematical knowledge. The second examines the role of abstraction, analysis and axiomatization. The third raises the question of whether the growth of mathematical knowledge constitutes progress, and how progress may be understood. Readership: Students and scholars concerned with the history and philosophy of mathematics and the formal sciences.

The present paper aims at showing that there are times when set theoretical knowledge increases in a non-cumulative way. In other words, what we call ‘set theory’ is not one theory which grows by simple addition of a theorem after the other, but a finite sequence of theories T1, ..., Tn in which Ti+1, for 1 ≤ i < n, supersedes Ti. This thesis has a great philosophical significance because it implies that there is a sense in which mathematical theories, like the theories belonging to the empirical sciences, are fallible and that, consequently, mathematical knowledge has a quasi-empirical nature. The way I have chosen to provide evidence in favour of the correctness of the main thesis of this article consists in arguing that Cantor–Zermelo set theory is a Lakatosian Mathematical Research Programme (MRP).