Tem: Of

Abstract
Among the aims of the author in this wide-ranging article is to draw attention to the numerous formal sciences which so far have received little scrutiny, if at all, on the part of philosophers of mathematics and of science in general. By the formal sciences the author understands such mathematical disciplines as operations research, control theory, signal processing, cluster analysis, game theory, and so on. First, the author presents a long list of such formal sciences with a detailed discussion of their subject matter and with extensive references to the pertinent literature. Turning to the nature of the formal sciences, the author states that “the formal sciences, though they arose in most cases out of engineering requirements, are sciences and can be pursued without reference to applications”. It is argued, through a wealth of examples, that in a great number of cases the formal sciences permit the attainment of provable certainty about actual parts of the world. As Franklin puts it, “knowledge in the formal sciences, with its proofs about network flows, proofs of computer program correctness, and the like, gives every appearance of having achieved the philosophers’ stone; a method of transmuting opinion about the base and contingent beings of this world into the necessary knowledge of pure reason.” Franklin clearly distinguishes between certainty and necessity: “ g¤g¤g what the mathematician in offering is not, in the first instance, absolute certainty in principle, but necessity. This is how his assertion differs from one made by a physicist. A proof offers a necessary connection between premises and conclusion. One may extract practical certainty from this g¤g¤g but this is a separate step.” Though Franklin explicitly states that there is a gap between necessity and certainty as one passes from mathematical reasoning to applications, the main thrust of the article consists in arguing that the gap is considerably smaller than generally claimed..
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,300
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
The Formal Sciences Discover the Philosophers' Stone.James Franklin - 1994 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 25 (4):513-533.
Structure and Domain-Independence in the Formal Sciences.James Franklin - 1999 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 30:721-723.
Formal Rationality and its Pernicious Effects on the Social Sciences.Harold Kincaid - 2000 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 30 (1):67-88.
Agency and Interaction What We Are and What We Do in Formal Epistemology.Jeffrey Helzner & Vincent Hendricks - 2010 - Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research 27 (2).
Proofs and Arguments: The Special Case of Mathematics.Jean Paul Van Bendegem - 2005 - Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities 84 (1):157-169.
Why Do We Prove Theorems?Y. Rav - 1999 - Philosophia Mathematica 7 (1):5-41.
Added to PP index
2010-12-22

Total downloads
6 ( #569,962 of 2,193,091 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #290,277 of 2,193,091 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature