A Non-error Theory Approach to Mathematical Fictionalism

  • Phil BériaultEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings of the Canadian Society for History and Philosophy of Mathematics/ Société canadienne d’histoire et de philosophie des mathématiques book series (PCSHPM)


Mary Leng has published many spirited, insightful defences of mathematical fictionalism, the view that the claims of mathematics are not literally true. I offer as an alternative an anti-realist approach to mathematics that preserves many of Leng’s valuable insights while ridding fictionalism of its most unpalatable feature, the claim that substantive mathematical claims are “in error”. In making my argument, I first present the virtues of Leng’s fictionalism by considering how she defends it against influential objections due to John Burgess. Leng’s view is roughly that indispensability in science is necessary but not sufficient for believing in the reality of something, and that philosophical analysis can make clear why some things, including mathematics, are necessary for science but not real. I suggest we can accept this without adopting error theory. Marrying features of Leng’s view with constructivism, a quite different sort of anti-realism about mathematics, allows us to: maintain that mathematical assertions are (at least often) literally true, but that it is a mistake to understand them as referring to abstract entities; to be anti-realists about mathematics; and to make use of the fictionalist toolkit Leng supplies for explaining why mathematics is indispensable, even if not real.


  1. Burgess JP (2004) Mathematics and Bleack House. Philosophica Mathematica (3), Vol. 12, No. 1:18–36MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carnap R (1950) Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, Vol. 4, No. 11:20–40zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Dummett M (1993) The Seas of Language. Oxford University Press, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Field H (1980) Science Without Numbers. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New JerseyzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Keene C (1930) The Secret of the Old Clock. Grosset and Dunlap, New York City, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Leng M (2005) Revolutionary Fictionalism: A Call to Arms. Philosophica Mathematica (III), Vol. 13 No. 3:277–293MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Leng M (2010) Mathematics and Reality. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Quine WV (1960) Word and Object. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Walton K (1973) Pictures and Make-Believe. The Philosophical Review, Vol. 82, No. 3:283–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Yablo S (2005) The Myth of the Seven. In: Kalderon ME (ed) Fictionalism and Metaphysics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations