Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T11:06:20.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Set theoretic naturalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Penelope Maddy
Penelope Maddy*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Department of Mathematics, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California 92717, USA, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

My aim in this paper is to propose what seems to me a distinctive approach to set theoretic methodology. By ‘methodology’ I mean the study of the actual methods used by practitioners, the study of how these methods might be justified or reformed or extended. So, for example, when the intuitionist's philosophical analysis recommends a wholesale revision of the methods of proof used in classical mathematics, this is a piece of reformist methodology. In contrast with the intuitionist, I will focus more narrowly on the methods of contemporary set theory, and, more importantly, I will certainly recommend no sweeping reforms. Rather, I begin from the assumption that the methodologist's job is to account for set theory as it is practiced, not as some philosophy would have it be. This credo lies at the very heart of the so-called ‘naturalism’ to be described here.

A philosopher looking at set theoretic practice from the outside, so to speak, might notice any number of interesting methodological questions, beginning with the intuitionist's ‘why use classical logic?’, but this sort of question is not a live issue for most practicing set theorists. One central question on which the philosopher's and the practitioner's interests converge is this: what is the status of independent statements like the continuum hypothesis (CH)? A number of large questions arise in its wake: what criteria should guide the search for new axioms? For that matter, what reasons support our adoption of the old axioms?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 490 - 514
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Aczel, P., Non-well-founded Sets, CSLI Lecture Notes, no. 14, 1988.Google Scholar
[2]Benacerraf, P., Mathematical truth, 1973; reprinted in [3], pp. 403–420.Google Scholar
[3]Benacerraf, P. and Putnam, H. (editors), Philosophy of Mathematics, second ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.Google Scholar
[4]Bridgman, P. W., Einstein's theories and the operationalist point of view, 1949; in [40], pp. 335–354.Google Scholar
[5]Burgess, J., Occam's razor and scientific method, to appear in Philosophy of Mathematics Today (Schim, M., editor).Google Scholar
[6]Burgess, J., Epistemology and nominalism, Physicalism in mathematics (Irvine, A. D., editor), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1990, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
[7]Burgess, J., Proofs about proofs, Proof, logic, and formalization (Detlefsen, M., editor), Routledge, London, 1992, pp. 8–23.Google Scholar
[8]Carnap, R., Empiricism, semantics, and ontology, 1950; reprinted in [3], pp. 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Chihara, C., Ontology and the Vicious-Circle Principle, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1973.Google Scholar
[10]Chihara, C., A Gödelian thesis regarding mathematical objects, Philosophical Review, vol. 91 (1982), pp. 211–227.Google Scholar
[11]Einstein, A., Autobiographical notes, 1949, in [40], pp. 1–94.Google Scholar
[12]Einstein, A., Remarks, 1949, in [40[, pp. 665–688.Google Scholar
[13]Einstein, A. and Infeld, L., The Evolution of Physics, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1938.Google Scholar
[14]Field, H., Realism, Mathematics and Modality, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1989.Google Scholar
[15]Gödel, K., Russell's mathematical logic, 1944; reprinted in [17], pp. 119–141.Google Scholar
[16]Gödel, K., What is Cantor's continuum problem?, 1964; reprinted in [17], pp. 254–270.Google Scholar
[17]Gödel, K., Collected Works, (Feferman, S.et al., editors), vol. II, Oxford University Press, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
[18]Goodman, N. and Quine, W. V., Steps toward a constructive nominalism, this Journal, vol. 12 (1947), pp. 105–122.Google Scholar
[19]Grattan-Guinness, I., An unpublished paper by Georg Cantor, Acta Mathematica, vol. 124 (1970), pp. 65–107.Google Scholar
[20]Hallett, M., Cantorian Set Theory and Limitation of Size, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984.Google Scholar
[21]Jensen, R. and Solovay, R. M., Some applications of almost disjoint sets, Mathematical logic and foundations of set theory (Bar-Hillel, Y., editor), North Holland, Amsterdam, 1970, pp. 84–104.Google Scholar
[22]Kline, M., Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
[23]Lavine, S., Review of Maddy's ‘Realism in Mathematics’, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 89 (1992), pp. 321–326.Google Scholar
[24]Maddy, P., Realism in Mathematics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1990.Google Scholar
[25]Maddy, P., Indispensability and practice, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 89 (1992), pp. 275–289.Google Scholar
[26]Maddy, P., Does V equal L?, this Journal, vol. 58 (1993), pp. 15–41.Google Scholar
[27]Maddy, P., Naturalism and ontology, Philosophia Mathematica, vol. 3 (1995), pp. 248–270.Google Scholar
[28]Maddy, P., Naturalizing mathematical methodology, to appear in Philosophy of Mathematics Today (Schim, M., editor).Google Scholar
[29]McLarty, C., Anti-foundation and self-reference, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 22 (1993), pp. 19–28.Google Scholar
[30]Moschovakis, Y., Descriptive Set Theory, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1980.Google Scholar
[31]Mostowski, A., Recent results in set theory, Problems in the Philosophy of Mathematics (Lakatos, I., editor), North Holland, Amsterdam, 1967, pp. 82–96.Google Scholar
[32]Pais, A., Subtle is the Lord, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982.Google Scholar
[33]Parsons, C., Note to 1944, 1990; in [17], pp. 102–118.Google Scholar
[34]Putnam, H., Philosophy of logic, 1971; reprinted in Mathematics, Matter and Method, second ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979, pp. 323–357.Google Scholar
[35]Quine, W. V., Epistemology naturalized, Ontological relativity and other essays, Columbia, New York, 1969, pp. 69–90.Google Scholar
[36]Quine, W. V., Five milestones of empiricism, 1975; first printed in Theories and Things, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981, pp. 67-72.Google Scholar
[37]Quine, W. V., Review of Charles Parsons's ‘Mathematics in Philosophy’, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 81 (1984), pp. 783–794.Google Scholar
[38]Quine, W. V., Pursuit of Truth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.Google Scholar
[39]Reichenbach, H., The philosophical significance of the theory of relativity, 1949; in [40], pp. 289–311.Google Scholar
[40]Schilpp, P. (editor), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1949.Google Scholar
[41]Shapiro, S., Mathematics and philosophy of mathematics, Philosophia Mathematica, vol. 2 (1994), pp. 148–160.Google Scholar
[42]Steiner, M., Review of Chihara's ‘Ontology and the Vicious-Circle Principle’, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 72 (1975), pp. 184–196.Google Scholar
[43]von Neumann, J., The mathematician, The works of the mind (Heywood, Robert B., editor), University of Chicago Press, 1947, pp. 180–196.Google Scholar
[44]Wang, H., From Mathematics to Philosophy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1974.Google Scholar
[45]Zermelo, E., Investigations in the foundations of set theory I, 1908, reprinted in From Frege to Gödel (van Heijenoort, , editor), Harvard University Press, Cambrdige, MA, 1967, pp. 200–215.Google Scholar