Synthese

, Volume 187, Issue 2, pp 489–508 | Cite as

Can the new indispensability argument be saved from Euclidean rescues?

Article
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Azzouni J. (2004) Deflating existential consequence: A case for nominalism. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker A. (2001) Mathematics, indispensability and scientific progress. Erkenntnis 55: 85–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker A. (2005) Are there genuine mathematical explanations of physical phenomena? Mind 114: 223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker A. (2009) Mathematical explanation in science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60(3): 611–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd, R. (1984) The current state of the realism debate. In J. Leplin, Scientific realism. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Busch, J. (forthcoming). Is the indispensability argument dispensable? Theoria: A Swedish Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  7. Colyvan M. (2001) The indispensability of mathematics. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 225–237Google Scholar
  9. Colyvan M., Lyon A. (2008) The explanatory power of phase spaces. Philosophia Mathematica 16(2): 227–243Google Scholar
  10. Dieveney P. S. (2007) Dispensability in the Indispensability Argument. Synthese 157: 105–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Field H.H. (1980) Science Without Numbers: A Defence of Nominalism. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Hacking I. (1982) Experimentation and Scientific Realism. Philosophical Topics 13: 71–87Google Scholar
  13. Liggins D. (2008) Quine, putnam and the ‘quine-putnam’ indispensability argument. Erkenntnis 68: 113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maddy P. (1992) Indispensability and practice. Journal of Philosophy 89: 275–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maddy P. (1997) Naturalism in mathematics. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Maddy P. (2007) Second philosophy: A naturalistic method. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Morrison J. (2010) Just how controversial is evidential holism? Synthese 173(3): 335–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parsons C. (1983) Mathematics and philosophy. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  19. Peressini A. (2008) Confirmational holism and its mathematical (w)holes. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 39: 102–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pincock C. (2004) A revealing flaw in Colyvan’s indispensability argument. Philosophy of Science 7(1): 61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Psillos S. (1999) Scientific realism: How science tracks the truth. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 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).Google Scholar
  23. Putnam, H. (1979b). What is mathematical truth. In Philosophical papers I: Mathematics matter and method (2nd Edn., pp.60–78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Quine, W. V. (1953a). On what there is. In From a logical point of view (2nd Edn). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Quine, W. V. (1953b). Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Quine, W. V. (1981). Carnap and logical truth. In The ways of paradox. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 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).Google Scholar
  28. Quine, W. V. (1992). Pursuit of truth (2nd Edn.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (first published 1975).Google Scholar
  29. Resnik M. (1997) Mathematics as a science of patterns. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Sober E. (1993) Mathematics and indispensability. Philosophical Review 102: 35–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sober E. (2000) Quine. The aristotelian society supplementary 74(1): 237–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van Fraassen B. (1980) The scientific image. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut for filosofi og IdéhistorieAarhus UniversitetAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations