Philosophical Presentation of Pluralism

  • Michèle Friend
Chapter
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 32)

Abstract

In part I of the book I gave motivations for adopting pluralism, from the starting point of several well-known philosophies of mathematics. I drew inspiration from them and rejected some of their claims as unwarranted. But we still do not have a clear picture of what pluralism is as a philosophical position in its own right. In this part, I give an initial presentation of the position over the course of four chapters. In this chapter I answer some pressing questions. I begin with the notion of tolerance. This invites discussion on three issues. One is normativity, the second is general organisation of the types of philosophical issues addressed by the pluralist, and the third is restrictions. In particular, I open the issue of how it is that the pluralist will cope with contradiction, and in what respect a paraconsistent logic can help the pluralist.

Keywords

Mathematical Theory Mathematical Practice Extensional Theory Paraconsistent Logic Peano Arithmetic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bar-Am, N. (2008). Extensionalism; The revolution in logic. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batens, D. (1986). Dialectical dynamics within formal logics. Logique et Analyse, 114, 161–173.Google Scholar
  3. Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Byers, W. (2007). How mathematicians think; Using ambiguity, contradiction, and paradox to create mathematics. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Priest, G. (2006a). Doubt truth to be a liar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Priest, G. (2006b). In contradiction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rav, Y. (2007). A critique of a formalist-mechanist version of the justification of arguments in mathematicians’ proof practices. Philosophia Mathematica, Series III, 15(2), 291–320.Google Scholar
  8. Rodin, A. (2008). Did Lobachevsky have a model of his imaginary Geometry?. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4099/1/loba8.pdf
  9. Singh, S. (1997). Fermat’s enigma: The epic quest to solve the world’s greatest mathematical problem. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  10. Slater, H. (2010). What priest (amongst many others) has been missing. Ratio, 23(2), 184–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sundholm, G. (1998). Inference, consequence implication; A constructivist’s approach. Philosophia Mathematica, VI, 178–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tennant, N. (1997). The taming of the true. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michèle Friend
    • 1
  1. 1.The George Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations