Logic and Philosophy of Science 9 (1):165-171 (2011)

Authors
Michele Friend
George Washington University
Andrea Pedeferri
George Washington University
Abstract
We are told that there are standards of rigour in proof, and we are told that the standards have increased over the centuries. This is fairly clear. But rigour has also changed its nature. In this paper we as-sess where these changes leave us today.1 To motivate making the new assessment, we give two illustra-tions of changes in our conception of rigour. One, concerns the shift from geometry to arithmetic as setting the standard for rig-our. The other, concerns the notion of effective proof or compu-tations. To make the assessment, we look at one motivation for increasing the rigour of a mathematical argument: explicitness and honesty. We then present a standard of rigour by means of a characterisation developed with reference to what we call ‘an account-proof’. We evaluate the standard with reference to the motivation. With the analysis we discover that, regardless of the motivations for rigour, the standard is almost never met, and that the motivations are not all satisfied. It follows that, in some sense, the motivations have misfired. The misfiring suggests to us that we re-assess our notion of rigour. We think of rigour as a relative term. Moreover, the standard for rigour depends on philosophical underpinnings. The strength of the argument of this paper rests on the plausibility of our selection of motivations and on the plausibility of our standard.
Keywords Pluralism  Proof  Rigor
Categories (categorize this paper)
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: 59,735
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

The Runabout Inference-Ticket.A. N. Prior - 1960 - Analysis 21 (2):38.
Intermediate Logic.David Bostock - 1997 - Oxford University Press.
Implicit Epistemic Aspects of Constructive Logic.Göran Sundholm - 1997 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6 (2):191-212.
Frege and the Rigorization of Analysis.William Demopoulos - 1994 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 23 (3):225 - 245.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Informal Rigour and Completeness Proofs.Georg Kreisel - 1967 - In Imre Lakatos (ed.), Problems in the Philosophy of Mathematics. North-Holland. pp. 138--157.
.[author unknown] - unknown
Proof and Canonical Proof.Bernhard Weiss - 1997 - Synthese 113 (2):265-284.
Rigour or Vigour: Metaphor, Argument, and Internet.Simon Barker - 1998 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 31 (4):248 - 265.
Knowledge of Proofs.Peter Pagin - 1994 - Topoi 13 (2):93-100.
How to Give Analytical Rigour to 'Soupy' Metaphysics.Howard Robinson - 1997 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 40 (1):95 – 113.
Mr. Geach on Rigour in Semantics.Y. Bar-Hille - 1952 - Mind 61 (242):261-264.
On Rigour in Semantics.Peter Thomas Geach - 1949 - Mind 58 (232):518-522.
The Rigour of Heidegger's Thought.Martin Weatherston - 1992 - Man and World 25 (2):181-194.
The Philosophical Basis of Mathematical Rigour.G. T. Kneebone - 1957 - Philosophical Quarterly 7 (28):204-223.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-04-18

Total views
41 ( #253,611 of 2,432,438 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #465,713 of 2,432,438 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes