La présente étude questionne l’objectivité des mathématiques à travers l’analyse de la pratique mathématique, dans une modalité didactique. À travers des dialogues en classe (dans l’esprit de Lakatos), nous examinons la thèse, inspirée des travaux de Granger, que le développement de mathématiques formelles selon la méthode abstraite structuraliste ne se réduit pas à un langage mais engage un « contenu formel » qui se déploie dans une intuition symbolique. La didactique ou épistémologie expérimentale contribue ainsi à la philosophie par un (...) commentaire d’expériences et l’interprétation de significations, dans des regards croisés. (shrink)

Despite some surface similarities, Charles Peirce’s philosophy of mathematics, pragmaticism, is incompatible with both mathematical structuralism and fictionalism. Pragmaticism has to do with experimentation and observation concerning the forms of relations in diagrammatic and iconic representations ofmathematical entities. It does not presuppose mathematical foundations although it has these representations as its objects of study. But these objects do have a reality which structuralism and fictionalism deny.

One kind of structuralism holds that mathematics is about structures, conceived as a type of abstract entity. Another denies that it is about any distinctively mathematical entities at all—even abstract structures; rather it gives purely general information about what holds of any collection of entities conforming to the axioms of the theory. Of these, pure structuralism is most plausibly taken to enjoy significant advantages over platonism. But in what appears to be its most plausible—modalised—version, even restricted to elementary (...) arithmetic, it requires defence of a very strong possibility claim: that there could be a completed w-sequence of concrete objects. There are very serious epistemological difficulties in the way of providing the requisite defence. (shrink)

Needless to say, Charles Parsons’s long awaited book1 is a must-read for anyone with an interest in the philosophy of mathematics. But as Parsons himself says, this has been a very long time in the writing. Its chapters extensively “draw on”, “incorporate material from”, “overlap considerably with”, or “are expanded versions of” papers published over the last twenty-five or so years. What we are reading is thus a multi-layered text with different passages added at different times. And this makes (...) for a rather bumpy read. There is another route Parsons could have taken: he could have reprinted the relevant papers with postscripts, and then top-and-tailed the collection with a preface and added concluding reflections. It must sound very ungrateful, but I rather suspect that that might have worked better. Much of the book is about arithmetic. But Parsons has woven into the discussion claims about mathematics more generally and about set theory in particular. We might well have a basic worry about this structure: for do defensible claims about the ontology and epistemology of arithmetic have to be generalizable to apply to more infinitary mathematics? For example, suppose you are attracted to a Hellman-like modal structuralist account of arithmetic: then should you think it a problem if you suspect that such an account can’t readily be extended to cope e.g. with set theory (since you boggle at the idea of possible worlds free of abstracta but with enough structure to somehow model ZFC)? Parsons himself seems to waver over such questions. So for present purposes, I’ll focus just on arithmetic, and in what follows I’ll revisit two of the most familiar Parsonian themes, his views on structuralism as an account of the ontology of arithmetic, and his exploration of the role of intuition in grounding arithmetical knowledge. (shrink)

Riassunto: Lo strutturalismo piagetiano, segnatamente quello in matematica, fisica e biologia alla luce dell’epistemologia genetica, rappresenta una declinazione peculiare e feconda dell’eterogeneo movimento strutturalista. Dopo una fortunata stagione, le strutture matematiche, rintracciate e indagate sotto diverse prospettive, hanno finito per costituire un “paradigma” didattico e di ricerca utilizzato su più livelli; in modo non dissimile, perché collegata alla matematica, la fisica ha considerato i propri “oggetti” dotati di una struttura: ma se originariamente era una struttura intesa in senso materiale, adesso (...) si studiano strutture con un più alto grado di astrazione. La biologia, poi, è divenuta argomento à la page, ma pure terreno di scontro epistemologico tra meccanicismo ortodosso e istanze vitalistiche, tra sostanze eterne e trasformazioni continue, ovvero tra strutture fisse e strutturazione dinamica. Le conclusioni rivalutano l’attualità e le prospettive dello strutturalismo piagetiano proiettandolo al di là dello strutturalismo classico, fino a farne, forse, una insolita quanto feconda tendenza post-strutturalista. Parole chiave: Strutturalismo; Epistemologia genetica; Jean Piaget; Costruttivismo; Storia dell’epistemologia Scientific Structuralism. Mathematics, Physics, and Biology in Piagetian Perspective: Piagetian structuralism, notably a genetic epistemological perspective on mathematics, physics and biology, represents a unique and fruitful articulation of the heterogeneous structuralist movement. After their initial success, mathematical structures, traced and investigated from different points of view, end up constituting didactic and research “paradigms” that can be used on several levels; in a similar way, physics – closely related to mathematics – initially considered its own “objects” to be endowed with structure: yet, while such structure was initially understood in a material sense, nowadays it is studied with a higher degree of abstraction. Biology has become an à la page subject, but also presents an epistemological battle between orthodox mechanism and vitalism, between eternal substances and continuous transformations, that is, between fixed structures and dynamic structuring. These conclusions lead us to re-evaluate the up-to-dateness and perspectives of Piagetian structuralism, to project it beyond classical structuralism and, maybe, to turn it into an unusual and promising post-structuralist trend. Keywords: Structuralism; Genetic Epistemology; Jean Piaget; Constructivism; History of Epistemology. (shrink)

I explore the relation between structuralism and other theses that I have presented in the rest of the book, in particular, my holism, realism about mathematical objects, and the disquotational account of truth. In developing my theory, I have claimed that there is no fact of the matter as to whether the patterns that the various mathematical theories describe are themselves mathematical objects, so I first try to explain what the locution ‘there is no fact of the (...) matter’ means. Next, I discuss the relativity of key structuralist concepts like sub‐pattern and pattern equivalence, and then explore the possibility of formulating structuralist versions of mathematical theories. Even if my holism precludes me from drawing a sharp distinction between philosophy and science I do not regard my structuralism as a mathematical theory but rather as a philosophical account of mathematics that tries to achieve a deeper understanding of the epistemology and ontology of mathematics. My structuralism is epistemic rather than ontic because it is not an ontological reduction or a foundation for mathematics but a philosophical view about the nature of its objects. So when it is combined with realism concerning mathematical objects, it need not commit one to the existence of structures. (shrink)

The paper proposes to amend structuralism in mathematics by saying what places in a structure and thus mathematical objects are. They are the objects of the canonical system realizing a categorical structure, where that canonical system is a minimal system in a specific essentialistic sense. It would thus be a basic ontological axiom that such a canonical system always exists. This way of conceiving mathematical objects is underscored by a defense of an essentialistic version of Leibniz’ principle (...) according to which each object is uniquely characterized by its proper and possibly relational essence (where “proper” means “not referring to identity"). (shrink)

The present work is a systematic study of five frameworks or perspectives articulating mathematical structuralism, whose core idea is that mathematics is concerned primarily with interrelations in abstraction from the nature of objects. The first two, set-theoretic and category-theoretic, arose within mathematics itself. After exposing a number of problems, the book considers three further perspectives formulated by logicians and philosophers of mathematics: sui generis, treating structures as abstract universals, modal, eliminating structures as objects in favor of (...) freely entertained logical possibilities, and finally, modal-set-theoretic, a sort of synthesis of the set-theoretic and modal perspectives. (shrink)

Mathematical structuralism can be understood as a theory of mathematical ontology, of the objects that mathematics is about. It can also be understood as a theory of the semantics for mathematical discourse, of how and to what mathematical terms refer. In this paper we propose an epistemological interpretation of mathematical structuralism. According to this interpretation, the main epistemological claim is that mathematical knowledge is purely structural in character; mathematical statements contain purely structural (...) information. To make this more precise, we invoke a notion that is central to mathematical epistemology, the notion of (informal) proof. Appealing to the notion of proof, an epistemological version of the structuralist thesis can be formulated as: Every mathematical statement that is provable expresses purely structural information. We introduce a bi-modal framework that formalizes the notions of structural information and informal provability in order to draw connections between them and confirm that the epistemological structuralist thesis holds. (shrink)

According to the realist rendering of mathematical structuralism, mathematical structures are ontologically prior to individual mathematical objects such as numbers and sets. Mathematical objects are merely positions in structures: their nature entirely consists in having the properties arising from the structure to which they belong. In this paper, I offer a bundle-theoretic account of this structuralist conception of mathematical objects: what we normally describe as an individual mathematical object is the mereological bundle of its (...) structural properties. An emerging picture is a version of mereological essentialism: the structural properties of a mathematical object, as a bundle, are the mereological parts of the bundle, which are possessed by it essentially. (shrink)

Recent work in the philosophy of mathematics has suggested that mathematical structuralism is not committed to a strong form of the Identity of Indiscernibles (II). José Bermúdez demurs, and argues that a strong form of II can be warranted on structuralist grounds by countenancing identity properties, or haecceities, as legitimately structural. Typically, structuralists dismiss such properties as obviously non-structural. I will argue to the contrary that haecceities can be viewed as structural but that this concession does not warrant (...) Bermúdez’s version of II but, rather, another easily falsified version. I close with some reflections on reference vis-à-vis structurally indiscernible objects. (shrink)

In this paper I argue for the view that structuralism offers the best perspective for an acceptable account of the applicability of mathematics in the empirical sciences. Structuralism, as I understand it, is the view that mathematics is not the science of a particular type of objects, but of structural properties of arbitrary domains of entities, regardless of whether they are actually existing, merely presupposed or only intentionally intended.

This long-awaited volume is a must-read for anyone with a serious interest in philosophy of mathematics. The book falls into two parts, with the primary focus of the first on ontology and structuralism, and the second on intuition and epistemology, though with many links between them. The style throughout involves unhurried examination from several points of view of each issue addressed, before reaching a guarded conclusion. A wealth of material is set before the reader along the way, but a (...) reviewer wishing to summarize the author's views crisply will be frustrated. The chapter-by-chapter survey below conveys at best a very incomplete and imperfect impression of the work's virtues, and even of its contents, falling short even of supplying a full menu for the banquet of food for thought that Parsons serves up to his readers. (shrink)

Plato himself would be pleased at the recent emergence of a certain highly Platonic variety of platonism concerning mathematics, viz., the structuralism of Michael Resnik and Stewart Shapiro. In fact, this species of platonism is so Platonic that it is susceptible to an objection closely related to one raised against Plato by Parmenides in the dialogue of that name. This is the Third Man Argument against a view about the relation of Forms to particulars. My objection is not a (...) TMA against structuralism; the position avoids that objection, but is vulnerable to a different one precisely at the point where it avoids the TMA. The way structuralism avoids the TMA has in fact been considered, as one of Plato’s options, by at least one commentator on the Parmenides, Colin Strang, who explicitly rejects it on logical grounds. In the course of the discussion, I shall clarify the reason that I believe led Strang to reject this option, and shall modify his own statement of that reason. (shrink)

We investigate the form of mathematical structuralism that acknowledges the existence of structures and their distinctive structural elements. This form of structuralism has been subject to criticisms recently, and our view is that the problems raised are resolved by proper, mathematics-free theoretical foundations. Starting with an axiomatic theory of abstract objects, we identify a mathematical structure as an abstract object encoding the truths of a mathematical theory. From such foundations, we derive consequences that address the main (...) questions and issues that have arisen. Namely, elements of different structures are different. A structure and its elements ontologically depend on each other. There are no haecceities and each element of a structure must be discernible within the theory. These consequences are not developed piecemeal but rather follow from our definitions of basic structuralist concepts. (shrink)

In this paper we put a thesis that it is possible to perceive mathematics as a science of structures, where the difference between structure as the object of study and theory as something which describes this object is blurred. We discusses the view of set-theoretical structuralism with a special emphasis placed on a certain gradual development of set theory as a formal theory. We proposes a certain view concerning the methodology of formal sciences, which is an attempt at describing (...) precisely and capturing in a scheme the ways of development of deductive sciences in general, set theory including. We show that the standpoint of sui generis structuralism has some features characteristic of purely formal theory. (shrink)

In his Realism, Mathematics, and Modality, Hartry Field attempted to revitalize the epistemological case against mathematical platontism by challenging mathematical platonists to explain how we could be epistemically reliable with regard to the abstract objects of mathematics. Field suggested that the seeming impossibility of providing such an explanation tends to undermine belief in the existence of abstract mathematical objects regardless of whatever reason we have for believing in their existence. After more than two decades, Field’s (...) explanatory challenge remains among the best available motivations for mathematical nominalism. This paper argues that Field’s explanatory challenge misidentifies the central epistemological problem facing mathematical platonism. Contrary to Field’s suggestion, inexplicability of epistemic reliability does not act as an epistemic defeater. The failure to explain our epistemic reliability with respect to the existence and properties of abstract mathematical objects is simply one aspect of a broader failure to establish that we are epistemically reliable with respect to abstract mathematical objects in the first place. Ultimately, it is this broader failure that is the source of mathematical platonism’s real epistemological problems. (shrink)

I identify two reasons for believing in the objectivity of mathematical knowledge: apparent objectivity and applications in science. Focusing on arithmetic, I analyze platonism and cognitive nativism in terms of explaining these two reasons. After establishing that both theories run into difficulties, I present an alternative epistemological account that combines the theoretical frameworks of enculturation and cumulative cultural evolution. I show that this account can explain why arithmetical knowledge appears to be objective and has scientific applications. Finally, I will (...) argue that, while this account is compatible with platonist metaphysics, it does not require postulating mind-independent mathematical objects. (shrink)

In this paper, I explore Bunge’s fictionism in philosophy of mathematics. After an overview of Bunge’s views, in particular his mathematical structuralism, I argue that the comparison between mathematical objects and fictions ultimately fails. I then sketch a different ontology for mathematics, based on Thomasson’s metaphysical work. I conclude that mathematics deserves its own ontology, and that, in the end, much work remains to be done to clarify the various forms of dependence that are involved (...) in mathematical knowledge, in particular its dependence on mental/brain states and material objects. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Self-Reference:Theory and Didactics between Language and LiteratureSvend Erik Larsen (bio)Semiotics of Self-ReferenceLiterary metafiction constitutes the extreme case of self-referential texts. Therefore we can either discard it as generally irrelevant for the understanding of the cultural functions of texts, or use it as a point of departure for the formulation of both general and basic aspects of such functions. The position taken in this essay will opt for the (...) last possibility, although I know full well that already the term "metafiction" itself inevitably triggers a variety of skeptical reactions. Does it not just refer to some author's self-centered ruminations in the ivory tower? Or a topic for the nerds of literary studies with a taste for theoretical acrobatics? If so, in both cases following metafictional inclinations results in complete isolation from both the context of literature and its readers.However, one may also adopt the opposite position. The metafictional features of literature constitute one of the means by which literature reaches out to its context and also engages its readers. And critical endeavors are not necessarily devoid of anything but their own concepts. They may instead pave the way for methodological and didactic considerations that ultimately make difficult literature more accessible as a cultural phenomenon. Rather than dwelling upon subtle theoretical differences in the definition of what metafiction is, I will therefore engage in a methodological approach: what kind of questions can we put to the texts, and what kind of answers can we reasonably come up with when using metafiction in a methodological and didactic framework?I shall begin by proposing a set of definitions broader than metafiction that will allow me to zoom in on it as a relevant methodological concept that opens for didactic reflections. The notion of metalevel will constitute my starting point. In its broadest sense, a metalevel indicates a position outside a given field of objects or meanings and in relation to it. But rather than relating [End Page 13] to the content of the field in question, the metalevel is supposed to serve as a platform enabling us to observe and evaluate basic principles and function of the field. This is the role of, for example, the theory of science or of epistemology in relation to the particular knowledge of various sciences. We may call it an epistemological metalevel.In a more restricted sense, a metalevel comprises a level in relation to a given sign system — rather than to a given field of objects — from which we can observe and evaluate the basic principles defining the function, range and validity of the sign system. This is the role of, for example, musicology in relationto the acoustic arts, art criticism in relation to the visual arts, medicine in relation to bodily symptoms. We may call it an inter-semiotic metalevel.Finally, in its most restricted sense, a metalevel points toward a level inside a given sign system from which we can refer to this sign system itself,but not in relation to a given field of objects or in relation to another sign system. We may call this level an intra-semiotic metalevel. In this context, language is a unique system, which in this capacity shapes literature as a particular linguistic phenomenon. Only inside the semiotic system of language can the intra-semiotic metalevel have two different functions:The first function is as a science of language, linguistics, which is itself a verbal sign system. In verbal scientific descriptions and arguments we may scrutinize the natural or everyday language as a medium, that is, its basic linguistic structures and principles, without taking into consideration its content, which it may share with other media. Texts and pictures may refer to the same phenomenon even if such references do not overlap completely. All other sciences differ from linguistics in this respect, because they cannot deal scientifically with their non-verbal objects through the same non-verbal medium as that which makes up the object, but need the support of a linguistic metalevel or at least of signs that are linguistically anchored. Even mathematics or other strictly formal sign systems are based on natural languages. We may refer to... (shrink)

The paper outlines a novel version of mathematical structuralism related to invariants. The main objective here is twofold: first, to present a formal theory of structures based on the structuralist methodology underlying work with invariants. Second, to show that the resulting framework allows one to model several typical operations in modern mathematical practice: the comparison of invariants in terms of their distinctive power, the bundling of incomparable invariants to increase their collective strength, as well as a heuristic principle (...) related to the search for new invariants. (shrink)

This paper aims to reassess the philosophical puzzle of the “applicability of mathematics to physical sciences” as a misunderstood disciplinary interplay. If the border isolating mathematics from the empirical world is based on appropriate criteria, how does one explain the fruitfulness of its systematic crossings in recent centuries? An analysis of the evolution of the criteria used to separate mathematics from experimental sciences will shed some light on this question. In this respect, we will highlight the (...) historical influence of three major disciplinary paradigms. According to the Aristotelian classification of the sciences, the separation of mathematics from physics is based on their respective objects of study. The Baconian system distinguishes these sciences by the type of knowledge involved in each field. Finally, the Whewellian disciplinary layout categorises these disciplines by their respective methods. In this paper, we argue that the cascading effect of such disciplinary categorisations—based successively on ontological, epistemological, and heuristic criteria—resulted in a profound redefinition of the border between mathematics and physics, with the consequence of obscuring the foundations of the interplay between these fields. Our approach intends to put forward such a mechanism as a constitutive piece of the puzzle of the applicability of mathematics. (shrink)

The indispensability argument, which claims that science requires beliefs in mathematical entities, gives a strong motivation for mathematical realism. However, mathematical realism bears Benacerrafian ontological and epistemological problems. Although recent accounts of mathematical realism have attempted to cope with these problems, it seems that, at least, a satisfactory account of epistemology of mathematics has not been presented. For instance, Maddy's realism with perceivable sets and Resnik's and Shapiro's structuralism have their own epistemological problems. This fact (...) has been a reason to rebut the indispensability argument and adopt mathematical nominalism. Since mathematical nominalism purports to be committed only to concretia, it seems that mathematical nominalism is epistemically friendlier than mathematical realism. However, when it comes to modal mathematical nominalism, this claim is not trivial. There is a reason for doubting the modal primitives that it invokes. In this thesis, this doubt is investigated through Chihara's Constructibility Theory. Chihara's Constructibility Theory purports not to be committed to abstracta by replacing existential assertions of the standard mathematics with ones of constructibility. However, the epistemological status of the primitives in Chihara's system can be doubted. Chihara might try to argue that the problem would dissolve by using possible world semantics as a didactic device to capture the primitive notions. Nonetheless, his analysis of possible world semantic is not plausible, when considered as a part of the project of nominalizing mathematics in terms of the Constructibility Theory. (shrink)

Category theory doesn't support Mathematical Structuralism but suggests a new philosophical view on mathematics, which differs both from Structuralism and from traditional Substantialism about mathematical objects. While Structuralism implies thinking of mathematical objects up to isomorphism the new categorical view implies thinking up to general morphism.

This paper draws together two strands in the debate over the existence of mathematical objects. The first strand concerns the notion of extra-mathematical explanation: the explanation of physical facts, in part, by facts about mathematical objects. The second strand concerns the access problem for platonism: the problem of how to account for knowledge of mathematical objects. I argue for the following conditional: if there are extra-mathematical explanations, then the core thesis of the access problem is (...) false. This has implications for nominalists and platonists alike. Platonists can make a case for epistemic access to mathematical objects by providing evidence in favour of the existence of extra-mathematical explanations. Nominalists, by contrast, can use the access problem to cast doubt on the idea that mathematical objects play a substantive role in scientific explanation. (shrink)

Recently, philosophers and social scientists have turned their attention to the epistemological shifts provoked in established sciences by their incorporation of big data techniques. There has been less focus on the forms of epistemology proper to the investigation of algorithms themselves, understood as scientific objects in their own right. This article, based upon 12 months of ethnographic fieldwork with Russian data scientists, addresses this lack through an investigation of the specific forms of epistemic attention paid to algorithms by data scientists. (...) On the one hand, algorithms are unlike other mathematical objects in that they are not subject to disputation through deductive proof. On the other hand, unlike concrete things in the world such as particles or organisms, algorithms cannot be installed as the objects of experimental systems directly. They can only be evaluated in their functioning as components of extended computational assemblages; on their own, they are inert. As a consequence, the epistemological coding proper to this evaluation does not turn on truth and falsehood but rather on the efficiency of a given algorithmic assemblage. This article suggests that understanding the forms of algorithmic rationality employed in such inquiry is crucial for charting the place of data science within the contemporary academy and knowledge economy more generally. (shrink)

Structuralism, the view that mathematics is the science of structures, can be characterized as a philosophical response to a general structural turn in modern mathematics. Structuralists aim to understand the ontological, epistemological, and semantical implications of this structural approach in mathematics. Theories of structuralism began to develop following the publication of Paul Benacerraf’s paper ‘What numbers could not be’ in 1965. These theories include non-eliminative approaches, formulated in a background ontology of sui generis structures, such as Stewart (...) Shapiro’s ante rem structuralism and Michael Resnik’s pattern structuralism. In contrast, there are also eliminativist accounts of structuralism, such as Geoffrey Hellman’s modal structuralism, which avoids sui generis structures. These research projects have guided a more systematic focus on philosophical topics related to mathematical structuralism, including the identity criteria for objects in structures, dependence relations between objects and structures, and also, more recently, structural abstraction principles. Parallel to these developments are approaches that describe mathematical structure in category-theoretic terms. Category-theoretic approaches have been further developed using tools from homotopy type theory. Here we find a strong relationship between mathematical structuralism and the univalent foundations project, an approach to the foundations of mathematics based on higher category theory. (shrink)

Philip Kitcher has proposed an account of mathematical truth which he hopes avoids platonistic commitment to abstract mathematical objects. His idea is that the truth-conditions of mathematical statements consist in certain general structural features of physical reality. He codifies these structural features by reference to various operations which are performable on objects: the world is structured in such a way that these operations are possible. Which operations are performable cannot be known a priori; rather, we hypothesize, conjecture, (...) idealize, and eventually wind up with theories which are true of the world, just as we do in the sciences. Kitcher argues that mathematical and physical knowledge are continuous, in that they concern the same subject matter and are subject to the same epistemological and methodological constraints. (shrink)

Charles Parsons’ book “Mathematical Thought and Its Objects” of 2008 (Cambridge University Press, New York) is critically discussed by concentrating on one of Parsons’ main themes: the role of intuition in our understanding of arithmetic (“intuition” in the specific sense of Kant and Hilbert). Parsons argues for a version of structuralism which is restricted by the condition that some paradigmatic structure should be presented that makes clear the actual existence of structures of the necessary sort. Parsons’ paradigmatic structure is (...) the so-called ‘intuitive model’ of arithmetic realized by Hilbert’s strings of strokes. This paper argues that Hilbert’s strings, considered as given in intuition, cannot play the role Parsons assigns to them: the criteria of identity of these strings do not have the sharpness that Parsons wants to see in them, and Parsons inadvertently projects abstract structures into his ‘intuitive model’. This diagnosis is exemplified with respect to (a) Parsons’ distinction between addition and multiplication on the one hand and exponentiation on the other and (b) his analysis of arithmetical knowledge in simple cases like “7 + 5 = 12”. All in all, it is claimed that Parsons book contains many important insights with respect to, for example, different versions structuralism, the notion of “natural number” and its uniqueness, induction, predicativity and other things, for which he is rightly famous, but that his way of drawing on the notion of intuition leaves too many questions unanswered. (shrink)

The debate on structuralism in the philosophy of mathematics has brought into focus a question about the status of meta-mathematics. It has been raised by Shapiro (2005), where he compares the ongoing discussion on structuralism in category theory to the Frege-Hilbert controversy on axiomatic systems. Shapiro outlines an answer according to which meta-mathematics is understood in structural terms and one according to which it is not. He finds both options viable and does not seem to prefer one (...) over the other. The present paper reconsiders the nature of the formulae and symbols meta-mathematics is about and finds that, contrary to Charles Parsons' influential view, meta-mathematical objects are not "quasi-concrete". It is argued that, consequently, structuralists should extend their account of mathematics to meta-mathematics. (shrink)

I argue that Gilles-Gaston Granger (1920–2016) broadly incorporates the central affirmations of Jean Cavaillès’s (1903–44) philosophy of the concept into his own epistemological program. Cavaillès and Granger share three interrelated epistemological commitments: they claim (1) that mathematics has its own content and is therefore autonomous from and irreducible to logic, (2) that conceptual transformations in the history of mathematics can only be explained by an internal dialectic of concepts, and (3) that the objectivity of mathematics is an (...) effect of the productive form of its rationality—that is, they claim that mathematical objectivity is the result of a generative process internal to mathematics. Mathematical objectivity, as I demonstrate, requires Cavaillès and Granger to modify the limits of epistemological critique as envisioned by Kant. For Cavaillès, this modification requires the elimination of the transcendental in favor of a dialectic of concepts. For Granger, the philosophy of the concept remains a genre of transcendental critique, but in a radically revised “Ptolemaic” style. I initially demonstrate how Granger extracts each of these claims from Cavaillès. I then follow Granger as he develops these claims in the service of a novel description of the content and structure of mathematical objectivity. (shrink)

There are two general questions which many views in the philosophy of mathematics can be seen as addressing: what are mathematical objects, and how do we have knowledge of them? Naturally, the answers given to these questions are linked, since whatever account we give of how we have knowledge of mathematical objects surely has to take into account what sorts of things we claim they are; conversely, whatever account we give of the nature of mathematical objects (...) must be accompanied by a corresponding account of how it is that we acquire knowledge of those objects. The connection between these problems results in what is often called "Benacerraf's Problem", which is a dilemma that many philosophical views about mathematical objects face. It will be my goal here to present a view, attributed to Richard Dedekind, which approaches the initial questions in a different way than many other philosophical views do, and in doing so, avoids the dilemma given by Benacerraf's problem. (shrink)

The work done so far on the understanding of mathematical (proof) texts focuses mostly on logical and heuristical aspects; a proof text is considered to be understood when the reader is able to justify inferential steps occurring in it, to defend it against objections, to give an account of the “main ideas”, to transfer the proof idea to other contexts etc. (see, e.g., Avigad in The philosophy of mathematical practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008). In contrast, there is (...) a rich philosophical tradition dealing with the concept of understanding and interpreting texts, namely philosophical hermeneutics, represented, e.g., by Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger or Gadamer. In this tradition, “understanding” generally refers to the integration in a comprehensive (historical, existential, life-worldly,...) context. In this article, we take some first steps towards exploring the question how the ideas from philosophical hermeneutics presented in Gadamer’s “Truth and Method” apply to mathematical texts and what (if anything) can be learned from these for the didactics and presentation of mathematics. (shrink)

Mathematics has often been described as the ‘Queen of Sciences’, yet philosophical problems arise as soon as one tries to define its subject matter. Anti‐realism concerning mathematical objects has proven to be problematic, but, on the other hand, realism gives rise to well‐known epistemological problems. In this book, I offer a type of mathematical realism according to which mathematical objects exist independently of our constructions, and mathematical truths are obtained independently of our beliefs. Central to (...) my account of mathematical objects is a sort of structuralism, according to which mathematical objects are featureless, abstract positions in structures. On the epistemological level, I reject the apriority of mathematical knowledge, and claim that our justification for believing in the truth of mathematics is derived from pragmatic and holistic considerations concerning science. (shrink)

The existence of mathematical objects may be explained in terms of their occurrence in problems. Especially interesting problems arise at the overlap of domains, and the items that intervene in them are hybrids sharing the characteristics of both domains in an ambiguous way. Euclid's geometry, and Leibniz' work at the intersection of geometry, algebra and mechanics in the late seventeenth century, provide instructive examples of such problems and items. The complex and yet still formal unity of these items calls (...) into question certain tenets of Resnik's structuralism, and of the reductive projects of the logicists. (shrink)

In this paper we discuss in which sense truth is considered as a mathematical object in propositional logic. After clarifying how this concept is used in classical logic, through the notions of truth-table, truth-function and bivaluation, we examine some generalizations of it in non-classical logics: many-valued matrix semantics with three and four values, non-truth-functional bivalent semantics, Kripke possible world semantics. • DOI:10.5007/1808-1711.2010v14n1p31.

The goal of this paper is to raise a novel objection to Lewis’s modal realist epistemology. After reformulating his modal epistemology, I shall argue that his view that we have necessary knowledge of the existence of counterparts ends up with an absurdity. Specifically, his analogy between mathematical knowledge and modal knowledge leads to an unpleasant conclusion that one’s counterpart exists in all possible worlds. My argument shows that if Lewis’s modal realism is true, we cannot know what is possible. (...) Conversely, if we can know what is possible, his modal realism is false. In the remainder of the paper, I shall consider and block possible objections to my argument. (shrink)

Charles Parsons examines the notion of object, with the aim to navigate between nominalism, denying that distinctively mathematical objects exist, and forms of Platonism that postulate a transcendent realm of such objects. He introduces the central mathematical notion of structure and defends a version of the structuralist view of mathematical objects, according to which their existence is relative to a structure and they have no more of a 'nature' than that confers on them. Parsons also analyzes the (...) concept of intuition and presents a conception of it distantly inspired by that of Kant, which describes a basic kind of access to abstract objects and an element of a first conception of the infinite. (shrink)

In this first of two companion papers to a logico-mathematic, structural methodology , a meta-level analysis of the non metric structure is presented in relation to critiques based on standard experimental, statistical, and computational methods of contemporary psychology and cognitive science. The concept of a non metric methodology is examined as it relates to the epistemological and scientific goals of experimental, statistical, and computational methods. While sharing in these goals, differences and similarities between the two methodological approaches are (...) outlined. It is argued that typical experimental methods are not sufficient to extract and validate semantic information in verbal narratives. It is further suggested that a logico-mathematic, structural methodology can yield invariant law-like cognitive processes by careful methodological control of the specific case — instead of those found by current methods that produce “laws” based on statistical frequency. Lastly, the issue of experimental manipulation in relation to the logico-mathematic, structural methodology is examined. (shrink)

Structuralism is a view about the subject matter of mathematics according to which what matters are structural relationships in abstraction from the intrinsic nature of the related objects. Mathematics is seen as the free exploration of structural possibilities, primarily through creative concept formation, postulation, and deduction. The items making up any particular system exemplifying the structure in question are of no importance; all that matters is that they satisfy certain general conditions—typically spelled out in axioms defining the structure (...) or structures of interest—characteristic of the branch of mathematics in question. Thus, in the basic case of arithmetic, the famous “axioms” of Richard Dedekind (taken over by Giuseppe Peano, as he acknowledged) were conditions in a definition of a “simply infinite system”, with an initial item, each item having a unique next one, no two with the same next one, and all items finitely many steps from the initial one. (The latter condition is guaranteed by the axiom of mathematical induction.) All such systems are structurally identical, and, in a sense to be made more precise, the shared structure is what mathematics investigates. (In other cases, multiple structures are allowed, as in abstract algebra with its many groups, rings, fields, and so forth.) This structuralist view of arithmetic thus contrasts with the absolutist view, associated with Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, that natural numbers must in fact be certain definite objects, namely classes of equinumerous concepts or classes. (shrink)

It is well known that Felix Klein took a decisive step in investigating the invariants of transformation groups. However, less attention has been given to Klein’s considerations on the epistemological implications of his work on geometry. This paper proposes an interpretation of Klein’s view as a form of mathematical structuralism, according to which the study of mathematical structures provides the basis for a better understanding of how mathematical research and practice develop.

A counterpossible is a counterfactual whose antecedent is impossible. The vacuity thesis says all counterpossibles are true solely because their antecedents are impossible. Recently, some have rejected the vacuity thesis by citing purported non-vacuous counterpossibles in science. One limitation of this work, however, is that it is not grounded in experimental data. Do scientists actually reason non-vacuously about counterpossibles? If so, what is their basis for doing so? We presented biologists (N = 86) with two counterfactual formulations of a (...) well-known model in biology, the antecedents of which contain what many philosophers would characterize as a metaphysical impossibility. Participants consistently judged one counterfactual to be true, the other to be false, and they explained that they formed these judgments based on what they perceived to be the mathematical relationship between the antecedent and consequent. Moreover, we found no relationship between participants’ judgments about the (im)possibility of the antecedent and whether they judged a counterfactual to be true or false. These are the first experimental results on counterpossibles in science with which we are familiar. We present a modal semantics that can capture these judgments, and we deal with a host of potential objections that a defender of the vacuity thesis might make. (shrink)

This book provides a collection of chapters on the development of scientific philosophy and symbolic logic in the early twentieth century. The turn of the last century was a key transitional period for the development of symbolic logic and scientific philosophy. The Peano school, the editorial board of the Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, and the members of the Vienna Circle are generally mentioned as champions of this transformation of the role of logic in mathematics and in the (...) sciences. The scholarship contained provides a rich historical and philosophical understanding of these groups and research areas. Specifically, the contributions focus on a detailed investigation of the relation between structuralism and modern mathematics. In addition, this book provides a closer understanding of the relation between symbolic logic and previous traditions such as syllogistics. This volume also informs the reader on the relation between logic, the history and didactics in the Peano School. This edition appeals to students and researchers working in the history of philosophy and of logic, philosophy of science, as well as to researchers on the Vienna Circle and the Peano School. (shrink)

In this paper, we look at Bourbaki’s work as a case study for the notion of mathematical style. We argue that indeed Bourbaki exemplifies a mathematical style, namely the structuralist style.

It has been standard philosophical practice in analytic philosophy to employ intuitions generated in response to thought-experiments as evidence in the evaluation of philosophical claims. In part as a response to this practice, an exciting new movement—experimental philosophy—has recently emerged. This movement is unified behind both a common methodology and a common aim: the application of methods of experimental psychology to the study of the nature of intuitions. In this paper, we will introduce two different views concerning the (...) relationship that holds between experimental philosophy and the future of standard philosophical practice (what we call, the proper foundation view and the restrictionist view), discuss some of the more interesting and important results obtained by proponents of both views, and examine the pressure these results put on analytic philosophers to reform standard philosophical practice. We will also defend experimental philosophy from some recent objections, suggest future directions for work in experimental philosophy, and suggest what future lines of epistemological response might be available to those wishing to defend analytic epistemology from the challenges posed by experimental philosophy. (shrink)

Keränen (2001) raises an argument against realistic (ante rem) structuralism: where a mathematical structure has a non-trivial automorphism, distinct indiscernible positions within the structure cannot be shown to be non-identical using only the properties and relations of that structure. Ladyman (2005) responds by allowing our identity criterion to include 'irreflexive two-place relations'. I note that this does not solve the problem for structures with indistinguishable positions, i.e. positions that have all the same properties as each other and exactly the (...) same relations to all objects (including themselves). I conclude that realistic structuralists must compromise and treat some structures eliminativistically. (shrink)

The rise of the field of “ experimental mathematics” poses an apparent challenge to traditional philosophical accounts of mathematics as an a priori, non-empirical endeavor. This paper surveys different attempts to characterize experimental mathematics. One suggestion is that experimental mathematics makes essential use of electronic computers. A second suggestion is that experimental mathematics involves support being gathered for an hypothesis which is inductive rather than deductive. Each of these options turns out (...) to be inadequate, and instead a third suggestion is considered according to which experimental mathematics involves calculating instances of some general hypothesis. The paper concludes with the examination of some philosophical implications of this characterization. (shrink)

Ernst Cassirer’s book Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff is a difficult book for contemporary readers to understand. Its topic, the theory of concept formation, engages with debates and authors that are largely unknown today. And its “historical” style violates the philosophical standards of clarity first propounded by early analytic philosophers. Cassirer, for instance, never says explicitly what he means by “substance-concept” and “function-concept.” In this article, I answer three questions: Why did Cassirer choose to focus on the topic of concept formation? What (...) did Cassirer mean in contrasting “substance-concepts” and “function-concepts”? How does Cassirer’s polemic against traditional theories of concept formation lead to the distinctive philosophy of mathematics that he defends in the book? I argue that Cassirer’s contrast between substance-concepts and function-concepts includes a series of interrelated contrasts—contrasts that touch on issues in logic, metaphysics, epistemology, and the theory of objectivity. Cassirer’s defense of mathematical structuralism flows out of a progressively unfolding and intricate argument that begins with epistemological problems in the theory of concept formation. (shrink)