Synthese:1-12 (forthcoming)

Authors
Hanne Andersen
University of Copenhagen
Line Edslev Andersen
Aarhus University
Henrik Kragh Sørensen
University of Copenhagen
Abstract
Mathematicians appear to have quite high standards for when they will rely on testimony. Many mathematicians require that a number of experts testify that they have checked the proof of a result p before they will rely on p in their own proofs without checking the proof of p. We examine why this is. We argue that for each expert who testifies that she has checked the proof of p and found no errors, the likelihood that the proof contains no substantial errors increases because different experts will validate the proof in different ways depending on their background knowledge and individual preferences. If this is correct, there is much to be gained for a mathematician from requiring that a number of experts have checked the proof of p before she will rely on p in her own proofs without checking the proof of p. In this way a mathematician can protect her own work and the work of others from errors. Our argument thus provides an explanation for mathematicians’ attitude towards relying on testimony.
Keywords Mathematics  Mathematical practice  Epistemic dependence  Testimony
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-020-02734-9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,232
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Arguing Around Mathematical Proofs.Michel Dufour - 2013 - In Andrew Aberdein & Ian J. Dove (eds.), The Argument of Mathematics. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 61-76.
Socializing Aspects of Proof Procedure.Jaroslaw Mrozek - 2018 - Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy 56:25-31.
Knowledge of Mathematics Without Proof.Alexander Paseau - 2015 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (4):775-799.
The Non-Remedial Value of Dependence on Moral Testimony.Paddy McShane - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (3):629-647.
Computer, Proof, and Testimony.Kai-Yee Wong - 2012 - Studies in Logic 5 (1):50-67.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-06-06

Total views
5 ( #1,096,781 of 2,329,884 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #151,284 of 2,329,884 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes