Burgess's ‘scientific’ arguments for the existence of mathematical objects

Philosophia Mathematica 14 (3):318-337 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper addresses John Burgess's answer to the ‘Benacerraf Problem’: How could we come justifiably to believe anything implying that there are numbers, given that it does not make sense to ascribe location or causal powers to numbers? Burgess responds that we should look at how mathematicians come to accept: There are prime numbers greater than 1010 That, according to Burgess, is how one can come justifiably to believe something implying that there are numbers. This paper investigates what lies behind Burgess's answer and ends up as a rebuttal to Burgess's reasoning.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
94 (#225,312)

6 months
7 (#736,605)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Scientific Image.William Demopoulos & Bas C. van Fraassen - 1982 - Philosophical Review 91 (4):603.
Mathematical logic.Joseph Robert Shoenfield - 1967 - Reading, Mass.,: Addison-Wesley.
The iterative conception of set.George Boolos - 1971 - Journal of Philosophy 68 (8):215-231.
Philosophy of mathematics: selected readings.Paul Benacerraf & Hilary Putnam (eds.) - 1983 - New York: Cambridge University Press.

View all 11 references / Add more references