Can the new indispensability argument be saved from Euclidean rescues?
- Jacob Busch
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The traditional formulation of the indispensability argument for the existence of mathematical entities (IA) has been criticised due to its reliance on confirmational holism. Recently a formulation of IA that works without appeal to confirmational holism has been defended. This recent formulation is meant to be superior to the traditional formulation in virtue of it not being subject to the kind of criticism that pertains to confirmational holism. I shall argue that a proponent of the version of IA that works without appeal to confirmational holism will struggle to answer a challenge readily answered by proponents of a version of IA that does appeal to confirmational holism. This challenge is to explain why mathematics applied in falsified scientific theories is not considered to be falsified along with the rest of the theory. In cases where mathematics seemingly ought to be falsified it is saved from falsification, by a so called ‘Euclidean rescue’. I consider a range of possible answers to this challenge and conclude that each answer fails.
- Azzouni J. (2004) Deflating existential consequence: A case for nominalism. Oxford University Press, New York CrossRef
- Baker A. (2001) Mathematics, indispensability and scientific progress. Erkenntnis 55: 85–116 CrossRef
- Baker A. (2005) Are there genuine mathematical explanations of physical phenomena? Mind 114: 223–238 CrossRef
- Baker A. (2009) Mathematical explanation in science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60(3): 611–633 CrossRef
- Boyd, R. (1984) The current state of the realism debate. In J. Leplin, Scientific realism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Busch, J. (forthcoming). Is the indispensability argument dispensable? Theoria: A Swedish Journal of Philosophy.
- Colyvan M. (2001) The indispensability of mathematics. Oxford University Press, New York CrossRef
- Colyvan M. (2006) Scientific realism and mathematical nominalism: A marriage made in hell. In: Cheyne C., Worrall J. (eds) Rationality and reality: Conversations with Alan Musgrave. Australasian Studies Series, Kluwer, pp 225–237
- Colyvan M., Lyon A. (2008) The explanatory power of phase spaces. Philosophia Mathematica 16(2): 227–243
- Dieveney P. S. (2007) Dispensability in the Indispensability Argument. Synthese 157: 105–128 CrossRef
- Field H.H. (1980) Science Without Numbers: A Defence of Nominalism. Blackwell, Oxford
- Hacking I. (1982) Experimentation and Scientific Realism. Philosophical Topics 13: 71–87
- Liggins D. (2008) Quine, putnam and the ‘quine-putnam’ indispensability argument. Erkenntnis 68: 113–127 CrossRef
- Maddy P. (1992) Indispensability and practice. Journal of Philosophy 89: 275–289 CrossRef
- Maddy P. (1997) Naturalism in mathematics. Clarendon Press, Oxford
- Maddy P. (2007) Second philosophy: A naturalistic method. Oxford University Press, Oxford
- Morrison J. (2010) Just how controversial is evidential holism? Synthese 173(3): 335–352 CrossRef
- Parsons C. (1983) Mathematics and philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca
- Peressini A. (2008) Confirmational holism and its mathematical (w)holes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39: 102–111 CrossRef
- Pincock C. (2004) A revealing flaw in Colyvan’s indispensability argument. Philosophy of Science 7(1): 61–79 CrossRef
- Psillos S. (1999) Scientific realism: How science tracks the truth. Routledge, London
- Putnam, H. (1979a). Philosophy of logic. In Philosophical papers I: Mathematics matter and method (2nd Edn., pp. 323–357). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (first published 1971).
- Putnam, H. (1979b). What is mathematical truth. In Philosophical papers I: Mathematics matter and method (2nd Edn., pp.60–78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Quine, W. V. (1953a). On what there is. In From a logical point of view (2nd Edn). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Quine, W. V. (1953b). Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Quine, W. V. (1981). Carnap and logical truth. In The ways of paradox. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Quine, W. V. (1986). Reply to Charles Parsons. In L. E. Hahn P. A. Schilpp (Eds.), The philosophy of W. V. Quine. Open Court: La Salle Ill, (pp. 396–403).
- Quine, W. V. (1992). Pursuit of truth (2nd Edn.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (first published 1975).
- Resnik M. (1997) Mathematics as a science of patterns. Clarendon Press, Oxford
- Sober E. (1993) Mathematics and indispensability. Philosophical Review 102: 35–58 CrossRef
- Sober E. (2000) Quine. The aristotelian society supplementary 74(1): 237–280 CrossRef
- Van Fraassen B. (1980) The scientific image. Clarendon Press, Oxford CrossRef
- Can the new indispensability argument be saved from Euclidean rescues?
Volume 187, Issue 2 , pp 489-508
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Jacob Busch (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Institut for filosofi og Idéhistorie, Aarhus Universitet, Jens Chr Skous Vej 7, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark