Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:02:20.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Scope and Force of Indispensability Arguments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Geoffrey Hellman
Geoffrey Hellman*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

One nice thing about the title of this symposium is the ease of finding a one-word answer. A disadvantage, however, is that “science” is ambiguous: is “philosophy of mathematics” included in “philosophy of science” or not? If so, the one-word answer is obviously obvious; but if not, the same answer is still pretty obvious, or so I hope it will appear by the end of this symposium. In fact, I believe that recent work in foundations of mathematics, especially of the sort represented in this symposium, serves to sharpen considerably central debates in both philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science generally, especially on the question of realism (vs. instrumentalism, or varieties of constructivism, or nominalism), and on the question of the indispensability of highly theoretical concepts and axioms for the more observational portions of mathematics and science.

Type
Part XIII. Is Foundational Work in Mathematics Relevant to the Philosophy of Science?
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1992 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1992 , 1993 , pp. 456 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Footnotes

1

This paper was presented at a symposium, “Is foundational work in mathematics relevant to the philosophy of science?” at the Philosophy of Science Association Meetings, Chicago, Nov. 1, 1992. Work of the author reported here has been supported by a National Science Foundation Scholars Award, No. 8922435.

References

Bishop, E. (1967), Foundations of Constructive Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. A.E. (1977), Elements of lntuitionism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1984), “Between Constructive and Classical Mathematics”, in Computation and Proof Theory, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1104. Berlin : Springer, pp. 143-162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feferman, S. (1988), “Wey! Vindicated :Das Kontinuum 70 Years Later”, in Temi e Prospettive della Logica e della Filosofia della Scienza Contemporanee 1. Bologna: Oueb, pp. 59-93.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. (1989), “Infinity in Mathematics: Is Cantor Necessary?”, Philosophical Topics XVIII, 2: 23-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, H. (1981), “On the Necessary Uses of Abstract Set Theory”, Advances in Mathematics, 41: 209-280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, H. (1986), “Necessary Uses of Abstract Set Theory in Finite Mathematics”, Advances in Mathematics, 60: 92-122.Google Scholar
Gleason, A. M. (1957), “Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space”, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 6: 885-893.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. (1989), “Never Say ‘Never’! On the Communication Problem between Intuiitionism and Classicism”, Philosophical Topoics XVII, 2: 47-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. (1993a), “Gleason's Theorem Is Not Constructively Provable”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22, 2: 93-203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. (1993b), “Constructive Mathematics and Quantum Mechanics: Unbounded Operators and the Spectral Theorem”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22, 3: 221-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. (forthcoming), “From Constructive to Predicative Mathematics”, in Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy and History of Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. (1927), “The Foundations of Mathematics”, in From Frege to Godel, J. van Heijenoort, (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 466-479.Google Scholar
Nerode, A. and Harrington, L. A. (1985), “The Work of Harvey Friedman”, in Harvey Friedman's Research on the Foundations of Matheamtics, L.A. Harrington, et al. (eds.). Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 1-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paris, J. and Harrington, L. A. (1977), “A Mathematical Incompleteness in Peano Arithmetic”, in Handbook of Mathematical Logic, J. Barwise (ed.). Amsterdam : North Holland, pp. 1133-42.Google Scholar
Pour-El, M.B. and Richards, I. (1983), “Noncomputability in Analysis and Physics: A Complete Determination of the Class of Noncomputable Linear Operators”, Ad vances in Mathematics, 48, 1 :44-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1971), Philosophy of Logic. New York :Harper.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975), “What is Mathematical Truth?” in Mathematics, Matter and Method: Philosophical Papers, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 60-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1953), ‘'Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, in From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper, pp. 20-46.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1976), “On Multiplying Entities”, in Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 259-264.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. G. (1985a), “Nonprovability of Certain Combinatorial Properties of Finite Trees”, in Harvey Friedman's Research on the Foundations of Mathematics, L.A. Harrington, et al. (eds.). Amsterdam : North Holland, pp. 87-117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1985b), “Friedman's Research on Subsystems of Second-Order Arithmetic”, in L.A. Harrington, et al. (eds.), op. cit. (Simpson 1985a), pp. 137-159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyl, H. ( 1949), Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar