Element contents
Mathematics and Metaphilosophy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 June 2022
Summary
This Element discusses the problem of mathematical knowledge, and its broader philosophical ramifications. It argues that the challenge to explain the (defeasible) justification of our mathematical beliefs ('the justificatory challenge'), arises insofar as disagreement over axioms bottoms out in disagreement over intuitions. And it argues that the challenge to explain their reliability ('the reliability challenge'), arises to the extent that we could have easily had different beliefs. The Element shows that mathematical facts are not, in general, empirically accessible, contra Quine, and that they cannot be dispensed with, contra Field. However, it argues that they might be so plentiful that our knowledge of them is unmysterious. The Element concludes with a complementary 'pluralism' about modality, logic and normative theory, highlighting its surprising implications. Metaphysically, pluralism engenders a kind of perspectivalism and indeterminacy. Methodologically, it vindicates Carnap's pragmatism, transposed to the key of realism.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108993937Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 30 June 2022
References
Arrigoni, Tatiana. [2011] “V=L and Intuitive Plausibility in Set Theory. A Case Study.” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. Vol. 17. 337–359.Google Scholar
Arrigoni, Tatiana and Sy Friedman, . [2012] “Foundational Implications of the Inner Model Hypothesis.” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. Vol. 163. 1360–1366.Google Scholar
Arntzenius, Frank, and Dorr, Cian. [2012] “Calculus as Geometry.” In Arntzenius, Frank (ed.), Space, Time and Stuff. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 213–68.Google Scholar
Azcel, Peter. [1988] Non-Well-Founded Sets. SLI Lecture Notes. Vol. 14. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Balaguer, Mark [1996] “Toward a Nominalization of Quantum Mechanics.” Mind. Vol. 105, No. 418. 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balaguer, Mark [2001] “A Theory of Mathematical Correctness and Mathematical Truth.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 82. 87–114.Google Scholar
Baras, Dan and Clarke-Doane, Justin. [2021] “Modal Security.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Vol. 102, No. 1. 162–183.Google Scholar
Barton, Neil. [2016] “Multiversism and Concepts of Set: How Much Relativism is Acceptable?” In Francesca, Boccuni and Sereni, Andrea (eds.), Objectivity, Realism, and Proof. Switzerland: Springer, 189–209.Google Scholar
Bell, John, and Hellman, Geoffrey. [2006] “Pluralism and the Foundations of Mathematics.” In Waters, Kenneth, Longino, Helen, and Kellert, Stephen (eds.), Scientific Pluralism (Minnesota Studiesin Philosophy of Science, Volume 19). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 64–79.Google Scholar
Benacerraf, Paul. [1965] “What Numbers Could Not Be.” Philosophical Review. Vol. 74. 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, Paul [1973] “Mathematical Truth.” Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 70. 661–679.Google Scholar
Bengson, John. [2015] “Grasping the Third Realm.” Gendler, Tamar Szabó and John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–34.Google Scholar
Berto, Francesco. [2009] There’s Something about Gödel: The Complete Guide to the Incompleteness Theorem. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boolos, George. [1971] “The Iterative Conception of Set.” Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 68. 215–231.Google Scholar
Boolos, George [1999] “Must We Believe in Set Theory?” In Jeffery, Richard (ed.), Logic, Logic, and Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 120–133.Google Scholar
Boghossian, Paul. [2003] “Epistemic Analyticity: A Defense.” Grazer Philosophische Studien. Vol. 66. 15–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourbaki, Nicolas. [1970] Elements of Mathematics: Theory of Sets. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Butterworth, Brian. [1999] What Counts? How Every Brain is Hardwired for Math. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Bueno, Otávio. [2020] “Nominalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/nominalism-mathematics/Google Scholar
Cameron, Ross. [2006] “Comment on ‘Kripke’s (Alleged) Argument for the Necessity of Identity Statements’.” Wo’s Weblog. www.umsu.de/wo/archive/2006/08/09/Kripke_s__Alleged__Argument_for_the_Necessity_of_Identity_StatementsGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. [1950] “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie. Vol. 4. 20–40. Reprinted in the Supplement to Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic,enlarged edition (University of Chicago Press, 1956). https://tu-dresden.de/gsw/phil/iphil/theor/ressourcen/dateien/braeuer/lehre/metameta/Carnap–EmpiricismSemanticsOntology.pdf?lang=enGoogle Scholar
Chen, Eddy Keming. [2019] “The Intrinsic Structure of Quantum Mechanics.” Essays on the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. PhD dissertation. New Brunswick: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Cheyne, C. [1998]. “Existence Claims and Causality.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 76. 34–47.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin. [2012] “Morality and Mathematics: The Evolutionary Challenge,” Ethics. Vol. 122. 313–340.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin [2015] “Justification and Explanation in Mathematics and Morality.” Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Vol. 10. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin [2016] “What is the Benacerraf Problem?” In Pataut, Fabrice (ed.), New Perspectives on the Philosophy of Paul Benacerraf: Truth, Objects, Infinity. Dordrecht: Springer, 17–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin [2019b] “Metaphysical and Absolute Possibility.” Synthese (Suppl 8). Vol. 198. 1861–1872.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin [2020a] “Set-theoretic Pluralism and the Benacerraf Problem.” Philosophical Studies. Vol. 177. 2013–2030.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin [2020b] Morality and Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin [2020c] “Undermining Belief in Consciousness,” for an author-meets-critics symposium on David Chalmers’ “The Meta-Problem of Consciousness,” with replies from Chalmers, Journal of Consciousness Studies. Vol. 26. 34–47.Google Scholar
Clarke-Doane, Justin [2021] “From Non-Usability to Non-Factualism,” for an author-meets-critics symposium on Holly Smith’s Making Morality Work, with replies from Smith, Analysis. Vol. 81. 747–758.Google Scholar
Cohen, Paul. [1966] Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis. New York: W. A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Cohen, Paul [1971] “Comments on the Foundations of Set Theory.” In Scott, Dana (ed.), Axiomatic Set Theory (Proceedings of Symposia of Pure Mathematics, Vol. XIII, Part I). Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Colyvan, Mark. [2007] “Mathematical Recreation versus Mathematical Knowledge.” In Leng, M. Paseau, A., and Potter, M. (eds.), Mathematical Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 109–122.Google Scholar
Helen, De Cruz. [2006] “Why are Some Numerical Concepts More Successful than Others? An Evolutionary Perspective on the History of Number Concepts.” Evolution and Human Behavior. Vol. 27. 306–323.Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas. [1997] The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Toffoli, Silvia. [2021] “Groundwork for a Fallibilist Account of Mathematics.” Philosophical Quarterly. 7(4). 823–844.Google Scholar
Devlin, Keith. [1977] The Axiom of Constructability: A Guide for the Mathematician (Lecture Notes on Mathematics: 617). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Devlin, Keith [1981] “Infinite Trees and the Axiom of Constructibility.” Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society. Vol. 13. 193–206.Google Scholar
Enoch, David. [2009] “The Epistemological Challenge to Metanormative Realism: How Best to Understand It, and How to Cope with It.” Philosophical Studies. Vol. 148. 413–438.Google Scholar
Eskew, Monroe. [2019] “Re: Why Not Adopt the Constructability Axiom?” May 20. https://mathoverflow.net/questions/331956/why-not-adopt-the-constructibility-axiom-v-lGoogle Scholar
Feferman, Solomon. [1992] “Why a Little Bit Goes a Long Way: Logical Foundations of Scientifically Applicable Mathematics.” Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Vol. 2. 442–455.Google Scholar
Ferrier, Edward. [2019] “Against the Iterative Conception of Set.” Philosophical Studies. Vol. 176. 2681–2703.Google Scholar
Field, Hartry [1996] “The A Prioricity of Logic.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Vol. 96. 359–379.Google Scholar
Field, Hartry [1998] “Which Mathematical Undecidables Have Determinate Truth-Values?” In Dales, H. Garth, and Oliveri, Gianluigi (eds.), Truth in Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, Hartry [2005] “Recent Debates about the A Priori.” In Gendler, Tamar and Hawthorne, John (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 69–88.Google Scholar
Faraci, David. [2019] “Groundwork for an Explanationist Account of Epistemic Coincidence.” Philosophers’ Imprint. Vol. 19. 1–26.Google Scholar
Fontanella, Laura. [2019] “How to Choose New Axioms for Set Theory?” In Centrone, S. et al., (eds.), Reflections on the Foundations of Mathematics, Synthese Library 407, Springer Verlag, 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15655-8_2Google Scholar
Forster, Thomas. [Forthcoming] The Axioms of Set Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available online (in preparation): www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~tf/axiomsofsettheory.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fraenkel, Abraham, Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, and Levy, Azriel. [1973] Foundations of Set Theory (Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Volume 67). New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. [1980/1884] The Foundations of Arithmetic: A Logico-Mathematical Inquiry into the Concept of Number (2nd rev. ed.). Austin, J. L. (trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Harvey. [1973] “The Consistency of Classical Set Theory Relative to a Set Theory with Intuitionistic Logic.” Journal of Symbolic Logic. Vol. 38. 315–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Harvey [2000] “Re: FOM: Does Mathematics Need New Axioms?” Post on the Foundations of Mathematics (FOM) Listserv. May 25, 2000. www.personal.psu.edu/t20/fom/postings/0005/msg00064.htmlGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Harvey [2002] Philosophical Problems in Logic (Lecture Notes). Princeton University. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/1/1952/files/2014/01/Princeton532-1pa84c4.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gaifman, Haim. [2012] “On Ontology and Realism in Mathematics.” The Review of Symbolic Logic. Vol. 5. 480–512.Google Scholar
Gödel, Kurt. [1990/1938] “The Consistency of the Axiom of Choice and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis.” In Feferman, Solomon (ed.), Godel’s Collected Works, Vol. II. New York: Oxford University Press, 33–102.Google Scholar
Gödel, Kurt [1947] “What is Cantor’s Continuum Problem?” American Mathematical Monthly. Vol. 54. 515–525.Google Scholar
Gödel, Kurt [1990/1947] “Russell’s Mathematical Logic.” In Feferman, Solomon (ed.), Gödel’s Collected Works, Vol. II. New York: Oxford University Press, 119–144.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. [1967] “A Causal Theory of Knowing.” The Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 64, No. 12. 357–372.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. [1955] Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, Joshua. [2013] Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap between Us and Them. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gibbard, Alan. [1975] “Contingent Identity.” Journal of Philosophical Logic. Vol. 4. 187–221.Google Scholar
Girle, Rod. [2017] Modal Logics and Philosophy (2nd ed.). Chicago: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
Guedj, Denis. [1985] “Nicholas Bourbaki, Collective Mathematician: An Interview with Claude Chevalley.” The Mathematical Intelligencer. Vol. 7. 18–22. Translated by Jeremy Gray. www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lekheng/interviews/ClaudeChevalley.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, Amit. [2014] Discrete or Continuous?: The Quest for Fundamental Length in Modern Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hamkins, Joel David. [2012] “The Set-Theoretic Multiverse.” Review of Symbolic Logic. Vol 5. 416–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamkins, Joel David [2014] “Re: Is there any Research on Set Theory without Extensionality Axiom?” Post on MathOverflow. May 27, 2014. https://mathoverflow.net/questions/168287/is-there-any-research-on-set-theory-without-extensionality-axiomGoogle Scholar
Harris, Michael. [2015] Mathematics without Apologies: Portrait of a Problematic Vocation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, W. D. [1996] “Introduction.” In Hart, W. D. (ed.), The Philosophy of Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hilbert, David. [1983/1936] “On the Infinite.” In Benacerraf, Paul, and Putnam, Hilary (eds.), Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–202.Google Scholar
Huber-Dyson, Verena. [1991] Gödel’s Theorems: A Workbook on Formalization. Vieweg: Teubner Verlag.Google Scholar
Hume, David. [1779] “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.” https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?cc=ecco;c=ecco;idno=004895521.0001.000;node=004895521.0001.000:2.10;seq=94;page=root;view=textGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Ronald. [1995] “Inner Models and Large Cardinals.” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. Vol. 1. 393–407.Google Scholar
Joyce, Richard. [2008] “Precis of the Evolution of Morality.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Vol. 77. 213–218.Google Scholar
Joyce, Richard. [2016] “Evolution, Truth-Tracking, and Moral Skepticism,” in Essays in Moral Skepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Juliette and Mark, Van Atten. [2003] “On the Philosophical Development of Kurt Gödel.” The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. Vol. 9. 425–476.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Juliette and Mark, Van Atten “Kurt Gödel.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 ed.), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/goedel/Google Scholar
Kilmister, Clive W. [1980] “Zeno, Aristotle, Weyl and Shuard: Two-and-a-Half Millennia of Worries over Number.” Mathematical Gazette. Vol. 64. 149–158.Google Scholar
Koellner, Peter. [2014] “On the Question of Absolute Undecidability.” Philosophia Mathematica. Vol. 14. 153–188.Google Scholar
Koellner, Peter “Large Cardinals and Determinacy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 ed.), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/large-cardinals-determinacy/Google Scholar
Kreisel, George. [1967a] “Observations on Popular Discussions of the Foundations of Mathematics.” In Scott, Dana. (ed.), Axiomatic Set Theory (Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, V. XIII, Part I). Providence: American Mathematical Association, 189–198.Google Scholar
Kreisel, George [1967b] “Informal Rigor and Completeness Proofs”. In Lakatos, Imre (ed.), Problems in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 138–171.Google Scholar
McCarthy, William & Clarke-Doane, Justin. [Forthcoming] “Modal Pluralism and Higher-Order Logic.” Philosophical Perspectives.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold. [2002] “Mathematics and Metaphilosophy.” Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 99. 362–390.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. [1971] “Identity and Necessity.” In Munitz, Milton K. (ed.), Identity and Individuation. New York: New York University Press, 161–191.Google Scholar
Leng, Mary. [2007] “What’s There to Know?” In Leng, Mary, Paseau, Alexander, and Potter, Michael (eds.), Mathematical Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 84–108.Google Scholar
Leng, Mary [2009] “‘Algebraic’ Approaches to Mathematics.” In Otavio Bueno and Øystein Linnebo (eds.), New Waves in the Philosophy of Mathematics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 117–134.Google Scholar
Lewis, David. [1983] “New Work for a Theory of Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 61. 343–377.Google Scholar
Liggins, David. [2010] “Epistemological Objections to Platonism.” Philosophy Compass. Vol. 5. 67–77.Google Scholar
Linnebo, Øystein. [2006] “Epistemological Challenges to Mathematical Platonism.” Philosophical Studies. Vol. 129. 545–574.Google Scholar
Maddy, Penelope. [1988a] “Believing the Axioms: I.” Journal of Symbolic Logic. Vol. 53. 481–511.Google Scholar
Maddy, Penelope [1988b] “Believing the Axioms: II.” Journal of Symbolic Logic. Vol. 53. 736–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magidor, Menachem. [2012] “Some Set Theories are More Equal.” Unpublished notes, http://logic.harvard.edu/EFIMagidor.pdfGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Russell. [2017] Autonomy Platonism and the Indispensability Argument. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Marshall, Oliver. [2017] “The Psychology and Philosophy of Natural Numbers.” Philosophia Mathematica. Vol. 26. 40–58.Google Scholar
Martin, D. A. [1976] “Hilbert’s First Problem: The Continuum Hypothesis.” In Browder, Felix (ed.), Mathematical Developments Arising from Hilbert Problems (Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics. Vol. 28). Providence: American Mathematical Society, 81–93.Google Scholar
Martin, D. A. [1998] “Mathematical Evidence.” In Dales, H. G. and Oliveri, G. (eds.), Truth in Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon, 215–231.Google Scholar
Mayberry, John. [2000] The Foundations of Mathematics in the Theory of Sets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merritt, David. [2020] A Philosophical Approach to MOND: Assessing the Milgromian Research Program in Cosmology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Milgrom, Mordehai. [2002] “Does Dark Matter Really Exist?” Scientific American. Vol. 287, No. 2 (August 2002). 42–46, 50–52.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. [2009/1882] A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive (8th ed.). New York: Harper & Brothers. www.guten-berg.org/files/27942/27942-pdf.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mogensen, Andreas. [2016] “Disagreement in Moral Intuition as Defeaters.” Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 67, No. 267. 282–302.Google Scholar
Montero, Barbara. [2019] “Benacerraf’s Nonproblem.” The CUNY Logic and Metaphysics Workshop. https://logic.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2019/10/12/benacerrafs-non-problem-barbara-gail-montero/Google Scholar
Nelson, Edward. [1986] Predicative Arithmetic (Mathematical Notes. No. 32). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Edward [2013] “Re: Illustrating Edward Nelson’s Worldview with Nonstandard Models of Arithmetic.” Post on Math Overflow. October 31. https://mathoverflow.net/questions/142669/illustrating-edward-nelsons-worldview-with-nonstandard-models-of-arithmeticGoogle Scholar
Newton, Isaac. [2007] “Original Letter from Isaac Newton to Richard Bentley.” The Newton Project. www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00258Google Scholar
John, Opfer, Samuels, Richard, Shapiro, Stewart and Snyder, Eric. [2021] “Unwarranted Philosophical Assumptions in Research on ANS.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Vol. 44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X21001060Google Scholar
Pantsar, Markus. [2014] “An Empirically Feasible Approach to the Epistemology of Arithmetic.” Synthese. Vol. 191. 4201–4229.Google Scholar
Potter, Michael. [2004] Set Theory and Its Philosophy: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, (eds.), Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Priest, Graham. [2008] An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic: From If to Is (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pudlák, Pavel. [2013] Logical Foundations of Mathematics and Computational Complexity Theory: A Gentle Introduction. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary [1967] “Mathematics without Foundations.” Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 64. 5–22.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary [1968] “Is Logic Empirical?” In Cohen, Robert S. and Wartofsky, Marx W. (eds.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 5. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 216–241.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary [1980] “Models and Reality.” Journal of Symbolic Logic. Vol. 45. 464–482.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary [2012] “Indispensability Arguments in the Philosophy of Mathematics.” In De Caro, Mario, and Macarthur., David (eds.), Philosophy in the Age of Science: Physics, Mathematics, Skepticism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 181–201.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. [1937] “New Foundations for Mathematical Logic.” American Mathematical Monthly. Vol. 44. 70–80.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. [1951a] “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” Philosophical Review. Vol. 60. 20–43.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. [1951b] “Ontology and Ideology.” Philosophical Studies. Vol. 2. 11–15.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. [1969] Set Theory and Its Logic (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. [1986] “Reply to Charles Parsons.” In Hahn, Lewis Edwin and Schilp, Paul Arthur (eds.), The Philosophy of W. V. Quine (Library of Living Philosophers, Volume 18). La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Rabin, Gabriel. [2007] “Full-Blooded Reference.” Philosophica Mathematica. Vol. 15. 357–365.Google Scholar
Rawls, John [1974] “The Independence of Moral Theory.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association. Vol. 47. 5–22.Google Scholar
Relaford-Doyle, Josephine and Rafael, Núñez. [2018] “Beyond Peano: Looking into the Unnaturalness of the Natural Numbers.” In Bangu, Sorin (ed.), Naturalizing Logico-Mathematical Knowledge Approaches from Philosophy, Psychology and Cognitive Science. New York: Routledge, 234–251.Google Scholar
Restall, Greg. [2003] “Just What is Full-Blooded Platonism?” Philosophia Mathematica. Vol. 11. 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieger, Adam. [2011] “Paradox, ZF, and the Axiom of Foundation” In DeVidi, David, Hallet, Michael, and Clark, Peter (eds.), Logic, Mathematics, Philosophy, Vintage Enthusiasms: Essays in Honour of John L. Bell (The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science). New York: Springer, 171–187.Google Scholar
Rosen, Gideon. [2002] “A Study of Modal Deviance.” In Gendler, Tamar Szabo and Hawthorne, John (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. Oxford: Clarendon, 283–309.Google Scholar
Rovane, Carol. [2013] The Metaphysics and Ethics of Relativism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. [1907] “The Regressive Method for Discovering the Premises of Mathematics.” In Lackey, Douglas (ed.), [1973] Essays in Analysis, by Russell, Bertrand. London: Allen and Unwin, 272–283.Google Scholar
Scott, Dana. [1961] “More on the Axiom of Extensionality.” In Bar-Hillel, Y., Poznanski, E. I. J., Rabin, M. O., and Robinson, A. (eds.), Essays on the Foundations of Mathematics, Dedicated to A. A. Fraenkel on his Seventieth Anniversary. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 495–527.Google Scholar
Schechter, Joshua. [2010] “The Reliability Challenge and the Epistemology of Logic.” Philosophical Perspectives. Vol. 24. 437–464.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stewart. [1983] “Conservativeness and Incompleteness.” The Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 80, No. 9 (September, 1983), 521–531.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stewart [1997] Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Stewart [2009] “We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident: But What Do We Mean By That?” Review of Symbolic Logic. Vol. 2. 175–207.Google Scholar
Shoenfield, Joseph. [1977] “The Axioms of Set Theory.” In Barwise, John (ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 321–344.Google Scholar
Sider, Theodore. [2011] Writing the Book of the World. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sider, Theodore [2021] “Equivalence”. Handout for Structuralism Seminar. www.tedsider.org/teaching/structuralism_18/HO_equivalence.pdfGoogle Scholar
Simpson, Stephen. [2009] “Toward Objectivity in Mathematics.” NYU Philosophy of Mathematics Conference. www.personal.psu.edu/t20/talks/nyu0904/nyu.pdfGoogle Scholar
Singer, Peter. [1994] “Introduction,” In Singer, Peter (ed.), Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–21.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. [1996] “On What Possible Worlds Could Not Be.” In Stalnaker, Ways a World Might Be: Metaphysical and Anti-Metaphysical Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, Mark. [1973] “Platonism and the Causal Theory of Knowledge.” The Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 70. 57–66.Google Scholar
Strohminger, Margot and Yli-Vakkuri, Juhani. [2017] “The Epistemology of Modality.” Analysis. Vol. 77. 825–838.Google Scholar
Tait, William. [1986] “Truth and Proof: The Platonism of Mathematics.” Synthese. Vol. 69. 341–370.Google Scholar
Tarski, Alfred. [1959] “What is Elementary Geometry?” In Leon, Henkin, Suppes, Patrick, and Tarski, Alfred (eds.), The Axiomatic Method with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the University of California, Berkeley, December 26, 1957–January 4, 1958 (Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics). Amsterdam: North-Holland, 16–29.Google Scholar
Thomasson, Amie. [2016] “What Can We Do When We Do Metaphysics?” In d’Oro, Giuseppina and Overgaard, Soren (eds.), Cambridge Companion to Philosophical Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101–121.Google Scholar
Thomasson, Amie [2020] Norms and Necessity. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsementzis, Dimitris and Halvorson, Hans. [2018] “Foundations and Philosophy.” Philosophers’ Imprint. Vol. 18. 1–15. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/foundations-and-philosophy.pdf?c=phimp;idno=3521354.0018.010;format=pdfGoogle Scholar
Väänänen, Jouko. [2014] “Multiverse Set Theory and Absolutely Undecidable Propositions.” In Kennedy, Juliette (ed.), Interpreting Gödel: Critical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 180–209.Google Scholar
Mark, Van Atten, Juliette, Kennedy. [2009] “Gödel’s Modernism: On Set-Theoretic Incompleteness, Revisited.” In Lindström, S., E. Palmgren, K. Segerberg, and V. Stoltenberg-Hansen (eds.), Logicism, Intuitionism, and Formalism. Synthese Library (Studies in Epistemology, Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Volume 341). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8926-8_15Google Scholar
Weaver, Nik. 2010. “You Just Believe That Because … ” Philosophical Perspectives. Vol. 24, No. 1. 573–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2010.00204.xGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, Linda. [1989] “Expressions vs. Numbers.” Philosophical Topics. Vol. 17. 173–196.Google Scholar
White, Morton. [1987] “A Philosophical Letter from Alfred Tarski.” The Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 84. 28–32.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. [2012] “Logic and Neutrality.” The Stone (New York Times). May 13. https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/logic-and-neutrality/Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy [2016] “Modal Science.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 46. 453–492.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy [2017] “Counterpossibles in Semantics and Metaphysics.” Argumenta. Vol. 2. 195–226. www.argumenta.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/2-Argumenta-22-Timothy-Williamson-Counterpossibles-in-Semantics-and-Metaphysics.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Mark. [1983] “Why Contingent Identity is Necessary.” Philosophical Studies. Vol. 43. 301–327.Google Scholar
Woodin, Hugh. [2004] “Set Theory after Russell: The Journey Back to Eden.” In Link, Godehard (ed.), One Hundred Years of Russell ́s Paradox Mathematics, Logic, Philosophy. New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Woodin, Hugh [2010] “Strong Axioms of Infinity and the Search for V.” In Bhatia, Rajendra (ed.), Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Hyderabad, August 19–27, Vol. 1. World Scientific, 504–528. http://logic.harvard.edu/EFI_Woodin_StrongAxiomsOfInfinity.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wright, Crispin and Shapiro, Stewart. [2006] “All Things Indefinitely Extensible.” In Rayo, Augustin and Uzquiano, Gabriel (eds.), Absolute Generality. New York: Oxford University Press, 255–304.Google Scholar
Zach, Richard. [2018] “Rumfitt on Truth-Grounds, Negation, and Vagueness.” Philosophical Studies. Vol.175, No. 8. 2079–2089.Google Scholar
Zeilberger, Doron. [2004] “‘Real’ Analysis is a Degenerate Case of Discrete Analysis.” In Aulbach, Bernd, Elaydi, Saber N., and Ladas, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Difference Equations. Augsburg, Germany: CRC Press, 25–35.Google Scholar
- 21
- Cited by