Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-12T03:58:03.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why a Little Bit Goes a Long Way: Logical Foundations of Scientifically Applicable Mathematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Solomon Feferman
Solomon Feferman*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Does science justify any part of mathematics and, if so, what part? These questions are related to the so-called indispensability arguments propounded, among others, by Quine and Putnam. The general idea of the arguments has been fonnulated (for critical assessment) by Penelope Maddy in a recent article as follows:

We have good reason to believe our best scientific theories, and mathematical entities are indispensable to those theories, so we have good reason to believe in mathematical entities. Mathematics is thus on an ontological par with natural science. Furthermore, the evidence that continns scientific theories also confirms the required mathematics, so mathematics and science are on an epistemological par as weil. (Maddy 1992, p. 78)

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. 442 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

1

Invited lecture in the Symposium, “Is foundational work in mathematics relevant to the philosophy of science?” at the meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Chicago, Nov. 1, 1992.

References

Bishop, E. and Bridges, D. (1985), Constructive Analysis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fefennan, S. (1964), “Systems of Predicative Analysis”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 29: 1-30.Google Scholar
Fefennan, S. (1975), “A Language and Axioms for Explicit Mathematics”, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 450: 87-139.Google Scholar
Fefennan, S. (1977), “Theories of Finite Type Related to Mathematical Practice”, in Handbook of Mathematical Logic, J. Barwise, (ed.). Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 913-971.Google Scholar
Fefennan, S. (1979), “Constructive Theories of Functions and Classes”, in Logic Colloquium ‘78, M. Boffa, D. van Dalen and K. McAloon (eds.). Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 159-224.Google Scholar
Fefennan, S. (1985), “A Theory of Variable Finite Types”, Revista Colombiana de Matematicas 19: 95-105.Google Scholar
Fefennan, S. (1988), “Hilbert's Program Relativized : Proof-theoretical and Foundational Reductions”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 53: 364-384.Google Scholar
Fefennan, S. (forthcoming), “What Rests on What? The Proof-theoretic Analysis of Mathematics”, Proceedings of the 15th International Wittgenstein Symposium.Google Scholar
Feferman, S. and Jager, G. (forthcoming), “Systems of Explicit Mathematics with Non-constructive μ-operator. I and II“Google Scholar
Folina, J. (1992), Poincare and the Philosophy of Mathematics, London : MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, H. (1975), “Some Systems of Second Order Arithmetic and Their Use”, in Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematics, Vancouver 1974, Vol.I, pp. 235-242.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1933), “The Present Situation in the Foundations of Mathematics”, Unpublished manuscript for a lecture delivered to a meeting of the Mathematical Association of America, 29-30 December 1933.Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1944), “Russell's Mathematical Logic”, in The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, P.A. Schilpp (ed.). Evanston: Library of Living Philosophers, pp. 123-153. (Reproduced in (Godel 1990, pp. 119-141).)Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1947), “What is Cantor's Continuum Problem?'”, American Mathematical Monthly 54:515-525; errata, 55: 151. (Reproduced in (GOdel 1990, pp. 176-187).)Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1964), “What is Cantor's Continuum Problem?” (revised and expanded version of (Godel 1947)), in Philosophy of Mathematics : Selected Readings, P. Benacerraf and H. Putnam (eds.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, pp. 258-273. (Reproduced in (Godel 1990, pp. 254-270).)Google Scholar
Gödel, K. (1990), Collected Works, Volume II. Publications 1938-1974, S. Feferman et alii (eds.). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Goodstein, R. L. (1961), Recursive Analysis. Amsterdam : North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hellman, G. (1993), “Constructive Mathematics and Quantum Mechanics : Unbounded Operators and the Spectral Theorem”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 22: 221-248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellman, G. (this volume), “On the Scope and Force of Indispen sability Arguments”.Google Scholar
Maddy, P. (1990), Realism in Mathematics. Oxford : Clarendon.Google Scholar
Maddy, P. (1992), “Indispensability and Practice”, The Journal of Philosophy 89: 275-289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E. (1986), Predicative Arithmetic. Princeton : Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pour-El, M. and Richards, I.(1989), Computability in Analysis and Physics, Berlin : Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Parsons, C. (1983), “The Impredicativity of Induction”, in How Many Questions? Essays in Honor of S. Morgenbesser, L.S. Cauman, et al. (eds.). Indianapolis : Hackett, pp. 132-154.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1984), “Review of Charles Parsons’ Mathematics in Philosophy”, The Journal of Philosophy 81: 783-794.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1986), “Reply to Charles Parsons”, in The Philosophy of W.V. Quine, I. Hahn and P.A. Schilpp (eds.). La Salle: Open Court, pp. 396-403.Google Scholar
Sieg, W. (l985), “Fragments of Arithmetic”, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 28: 33-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, S. (1987), “Subsystems of Zi and Reverse Mathematics”, Appendix to (Takeuti 1987), pp. 432-446.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. (1988), “Partial Realizations of Hilbert's Program”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 53: 349-363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takeuti, G. (1978), Two Applications of Logic to Mathematics. Princeton: Princeton.Google Scholar
Takeuti, G. (1987), Proof Theory (2nd edn.). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Weyl, H. (1918), Das Kontinuum. Kritische Untersuchungen Uber die Grundlagen der Analysis. Leipzig: Veit.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyl, H. ( 1987), The Continuum. A Critical Examinations of the Foundations of Analysis, translation of (Weyl 1918) by S. Pollard and T. Bole). Lantham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. and Russell, B. (1910-1913), Principia Mathematica, Vols. 1-3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wigner, E. (1960), “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences”, Communications in Pure and Applied M athematics 13: 1-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar