In this paper I assess the obstacles to a transfer of Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programmes to mathematics. I argue that, if we are to use something akin to this methodology to discuss modern mathematics with its interweaving theoretical development, we shall require a more intricate construction and we shall have to move still further away from seeing mathematical knowledge as a collection of statements. I also examine the notion of rivalry within mathematics and (...) claim that this appears to be significant only at a high level. In addition, ideas of ‘progress’ in mathematics are outlined. (shrink)

On December 10th, 1947, John von Neumann wrote to the Spanish translator of his Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: 1Your questions on the nature of mathematical physics and theoretical physics are interesting but a little difficult to answer with precision in my own mind. I have always drawn a somewhat vague line of demarcation between the two subjects, but it was really more a difference in distribution of emphases. I think that in theoretical physics the main emphasis is on the (...) connection with experimental physics and those methodological processes which lead to new theories and new formulations, whereas mathematical physics deals with the actual solution and mathematical execution of a theory which is assumed to be correct per se, or assumed to be correct for the sake of the discussion. In other words, I would say that theoretical physics deals rather with the formation and mathematical physics rather with the exploitation of physical theories. However, when a new theory has to be evaluated and compared with experience, both aspects mix. (shrink)

With his book The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge (1983), Ph. Kitcher, that had been doing extensive research in the history of the subject and in the contemporary debates on epistemology, saw clearly the need for a change in philosophy of mathematics. His goal was to replace the dominant, apriorist philosophy of mathematics with an empiricist philosophy. The current philosophies of mathematics all appeared, according to his analysis, not to fit well with how mathematicians actually do mathematics. (...) A shift in orientation should invoke the more general reflection that causal, genetic factors are as significant for epistemology as logical structure. As I am to a large extent sympathetic with Kitcher's proposal, my aims here will be simple: first I start presenting Kitcher's argument, and then I try to raise some doubts about his contribution. These doubts come probably from my unskilfulness to follow the torrential flow of Kitcher's ideas. (shrink)

Practice-based approaches to philosophy of mathematics have gone mainstream over the past several decades. As the paradigm has grown in popularity, however, there’s been little sustained meditation—and still less any explicit consensus—on what precisely it means for philosophy to take practice seriously. The field’s lack of a clear common methodology has begun to make itself felt in slowed and uncertain progress on core problems. Here I review the methodological situation and propose five canons to guide future research. I (...) focus throughout on the study of explanation in mathematics as a guiding example. (shrink)

Perspectival realists often appeal to the methodology of science to secure a realist account of the retention and continued success of scientific claims through the progress of science. However, in the context of modern physics, the retention and continued success of scientific claims are typically only definable within a mathematical framework. In this article, I argue that this concern leaves the perspectivist open to Cassirer’s neo-Kantian critique of the applicability of mathematics in the natural sciences. To support this (...) criticism, I present a case study on the conservation of energy in modern physics. (shrink)

The IOth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, which took place in Florence in August 1995, offered a vivid and comprehensive picture of the present state of research in all directions of Logic and Philosophy of Science. The final program counted 51 invited lectures and around 700 contributed papers, distributed in 15 sections. Following the tradition of previous LMPS-meetings, some authors, whose papers aroused particular interest, were invited to submit their works for publication in a collection (...) of selected contributed papers. Due to the large number of interesting contributions, it was decided to split the collection into two distinct volumes: one covering the areas of Logic, Foundations of Mathematics and Computer Science, the other focusing on the general Philosophy of Science and the Foundations of Physics. As a leading choice criterion for the present volume, we tried to combine papers containing relevant technical results in pure and applied logic with papers devoted to conceptual analyses, deeply rooted in advanced present-day research. After all, we believe this is part of the genuine spirit underlying the whole enterprise of LMPS studies. (shrink)

Given that natural science no longer dictates the course of mathematical development and that no curtailment of the free flowering of pure mathematics seems prudent, what are the appropriate methods to use? This chapter argues that those methods are not properly based in extra-mathematical metaphysics, that internal mathematical ends and values should carry the day. The various branches of mathematics aim at different goals, which explains why set theorists strive for a single unified theory of sets while geometers (...) and algebraists embrace a variety of structures. Set theory's foundational role requires that its fundamental axioms form a unified list and that they be as generous as possible. These desiderata count against an axiom candidate like the Axiom of Constructibility (V=L). (shrink)

The constantly accelerating progress of contemporary natural science is indissolubly associated with the development and use of mathematics and with the processes of mathematical modeling of the phenomena of nature. The essence of this diverse and highly fertile interaction of mathematics and natural science and the dialectics of this interaction can only be disclosed through analysis of the nature of theoretical notions in general. Today, above all in the ranks of materialistically minded researchers, it is generally accepted that (...) theory possesses a value of its own. Contrary to positivist concepts of the nature of our knowledge, the meaning and significance of theory do not consist merely of the recording of experimental data, their classification and notation in abbreviated form. The meaning of theory is considerably more significant and is revealed, above all, in its explanatory and predictive functions. Contemporary theoretical knowledge is quite advanced and comprises a highly complex system, relatively self-contained and capable of internal development. Mathematics is the most interesting and distinctive phenomenon in the system of theoretical knowledge, in the system of science in general. It is in its dialectical development that the internal force and dynamics of the development of theory, in the very broadest sense of that word, find expression. Paul Lafargue tells us that Karl Marx held that "science only attains perfection when it succeeds in making use of mathematics". In many fields of research the formulation of new ideas and concepts rests upon mathematics, its concepts and notions, and "is suggested" by the latter. "Mathematics," writes F. Dyson, "is the main source of the notions and principles out of which new theories are created". The basic significance of mathematics to theory has been noted by outstanding thinkers over the course of the entire history of development of science. Today the expressive phrase, "the mathematization of knowledge," has come into general currency as a description of the principal direction of growth of theoretical notions in natural science. However, with respect to the growth of modern theoretical physics in general, the statement that it develops primarily by the method of the mathematical hypothesis has general validity. For example, the principal findings and discoveries of quantum theory and particle physics, starting from the corpuscularwave dualism and terminating with the omega minus hyperon and hypothetical quarks, were obtained or made "at the tip of a mathematician's pen.". (shrink)

Imre Lakatos' philosophical and scientific papers are published here in two volumes. Volume I brings together his very influential but scattered papers on the philosophy of the physical sciences, and includes one important unpublished essay on the effect of Newton's scientific achievement. Volume II presents his work on the philosophy of mathematics (much of it unpublished), together with some critical essays on contemporary philosophers of science and some famous polemical writings on political and educational issues. Imre Lakatos had an (...) influence out of all proportion to the length of his philosophical career. This collection exhibits and confirms the originality, range and the essential unity of his work. It demonstrates too the force and spirit he brought to every issue with which he engaged, from his most abstract mathematical work to his passionate 'Letter to the director of the LSE'. Lakatos' ideas are now the focus of widespread and increasing interest, and these volumes should make possible for the first time their study as a whole and their proper assessment. (shrink)

Contemporary philosophy’s three main naturalisms are methodological, ontological and epistemological. Methodological naturalism states that the only authoritative standards are those of science. Ontological and epistemological naturalism respectively state that all entities and all valid methods of inquiry are in some sense natural. In philosophy of mathematics of the past few decades methodological naturalism has received the lion’s share of the attention, so we concentrate on this. Ontological and epistemological naturalism in the philosophy of mathematics are discussed more briefly (...) in section 6. (shrink)

Without the concepts, methods and results found and developed by previous generations right down to Greek antiquity one cannot understand either the aims or achievements of mathematics in the last 50 years. (Hermann Weyl, 1951.).

I present and discuss an unknown early manuscript by David Hilbert, which bears witness both to now largely forgotten debates, as well as to the breadth of Hilbert’s knowledge of nineteenth-century philosophy: in it, Hilbert surveys a variety of criticisms of, and ultimately subscribes to (a version of), Kant’s philosophy of mathematics. I present a carefully documented conjecture concerning the time and context of composition, arguing that the manuscript is likely a draft of something like a term-paper written for (...) a course taught by Günther Thiele in the Sommersemester 1885. (It incidentally contains one of the earliest documented engagements with Frege.) I also highlight one instance where Hilbert takes up a position from this manuscript later, thus showing that engagement with the philosophy of his time shaped Hilbert’s views on the nature and methodology of mathematics from the earliest stages of his career. (shrink)

This dissertation makes two primary contributions. The first three chapters develop an interpretation of Carnap's Meta-Philosophical Program which places stress upon his methodological analysis of the sciences over and above the Principle of Tolerance. Most importantly, I suggest, is that Carnap sees philosophy as contiguous with science—as a part of the scientific enterprise—so utilizing the very same methods and subject to the same limitations. I argue that the methodological reforms he suggests for philosophy amount to philosophy as the explication of (...) the concepts of science through the construction and use of suitably robust meta-logical languages. My primary interpretive claim is that Carnap's understanding of logic and mathematics as a set of formal auxiliaries is premised upon this prior analysis of the character of logico-mathematical knowledge, his understanding of its role in the language of science, and the methods used by practicing mathematicians. Thus the Principle of Tolerance, and so Carnap's logical pluralism, is licensed and justified by these methodological insights. This interpretation of Carnap's program contrasts with the popular Deflationary reading as proposed in Goldfarb & Ricketts. The leading idea they attribute to Carnap is a Logocentrism: That philosophical assertions are always made relative to some particular language, and that our choice of syntactical rules for a language are constitutive of its inferential structure and methods of possible justification. Consequently Tolerance is considered the foundation of Carnap's entire program. My third chapter argues that this reading makes Carnap's program philosophically inert, and I present significant evidence that such a reading is misguided. The final chapter attempts to extend the methodological ideals of Carnap's program to the analysis of the ongoing debate between category- and set-theoretic foundations for mathematics. Recent criticism of category theory as a foundation charges that it is neither autonomous from set theory, nor offers a suitable ontological grounding for mathematics. I argue that an analysis of concepts can be foundationally informative without requiring the construction of those concepts from first principles, and that ontological worries can be seen as methodologically unfruitful. (shrink)

This Element introduces a young field, the 'philosophy of mathematical practice'. We first offer a general characterisation of the approach to the philosophy of mathematics that takes mathematical practice seriously and contrast it with 'mathematical philosophy'. The latter is traced back to Bertrand Russell and the orientation referred to as 'scientific philosophy' that was active between 1850 and 1930. To give a better sense of the field, the Element further contains two examples of topics studied, that of mathematical structuralism (...) and visual thinking in mathematics. These are in part presented from a methodological point of view, focussing on mathematics as an activity and questions related to how mathematics develops. In addition, the Element contains several examples from mathematics, both historical and contemporary, to illustrate and support the philosophical points. (shrink)

The paper is concentrated on Aristotle's "Posterior Analytics" and attempts to show that his account of the sciences is less uniform than it is usually taken to be but shows some awareness of important differences between the mathematical and the physical sciences.

Mathematical structuralism is deeply connected with Hilbert and Bernays’s proof theory and its programmatic aim to ensure the consistency of all of mathematics. That aim was to be reached on the basis of finitist mathematics. Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem forced a step from _absolute finitist_ to _relative constructivist_ proof-theoretic reductions. This mathematical step was accompanied by philosophical arguments for the special nature of the grounding constructivist frameworks. Against that background, this chapter examines Bernays’s reflections on proof-theoretic reductions of (...) _mathematical structures_ to _methodological frames_ via _projections_. However, these reflections are focused on narrowly arithmetic features of frames. Drawing on broadened meta-mathematical experience, this chapter proposes a more general characterization of frames that has ontological and epistemological significance. The characterization is given in terms of _accessibility_: domains of objects are accessible if their elements are inductively generated, and principles for such domains are accessible if they are grounded in our understanding of the generating processes. (shrink)

Moritz Pasch (1843ber neuere Geometrie (1882), in which he also clearly formulated the view that deductions must be independent from the meanings of the nonlogical terms involved. Pasch also presented in these lectures the main tenets of his philosophy of mathematics, which he continued to elaborate on throughout the rest of his life. This philosophy is quite unique in combining a deductivist methodology with a radically empiricist epistemology for mathematics. By taking into consideration publications from the entire (...) span of Paschs highly original, but virtually unknown, philosophy of mathematics is presented. (shrink)

In this book, which is both a philosophical and historiographical study, the author investigates the fallibility and the rationality of mathematics by means of rational reconstructions of developments in mathematics. The initial chapters are devoted to a critical discussion of Lakatos' philosophy of mathematics. In the remaining chapters several episodes in the history of mathematics are discussed, such as the appearance of deduction in Greek mathematics and the transition from Eighteenth-Century to Nineteenth-Century analysis. The author (...) aims at developing a notion of mathematical rationality that agrees with the historical facts. A modified version of Lakatos' methodology is proposed. The resulting constructions show that mathematical knowledge is fallible, but that its fallibility is remarkably weak. (shrink)

According to Steiner (1998), in contemporary physics new important discoveries are often obtained by means of strategies which rely on purely formal mathematical considerations. In such discoveries, mathematics seems to have a peculiar and controversial role, which apparently cannot be accounted for by means of standard methodological criteria. M. Gell-Mann and Y. Ne׳eman׳s prediction of the Ω− particle is usually considered a typical example of application of this kind of strategy. According to Bangu (2008), this prediction is apparently based (...) on the employment of a highly controversial principle—what he calls the “reification principle”. Bangu himself takes this principle to be methodologically unjustifiable, but still indispensable to make the prediction logically sound. In the present paper I will offer a new reconstruction of the reasoning that led to this prediction. By means of this reconstruction, I will show that we do not need to postulate any “reificatory” role of mathematics in contemporary physics and I will contextually clarify the representative and heuristic role of mathematics in science. (shrink)

This edited volume explores the previously underacknowledged 'pre-history' of mathematical structuralism, showing that structuralism has deep roots in the history of modern mathematics. The contributors explore this history along two distinct but interconnected dimensions. First, they reconsider the methodological contributions of major figures in the history of mathematics. Second, they re-examine a range of philosophical reflections from mathematically-inclinded philosophers like Russell, Carnap, and Quine, whose work led to profound conclusions about logical, epistemological, and metaphysic.

Methodology might be understood to mean a description of various individual procedures which have led to the successful solution of specific problems. In studying the subject of physics from this point of view, i.e. with special emphasis on method, one would naturally turn his attention to the traditional divisions of experimental and theoretical physics, the former with its measuring devices and the latter with its mathematical technique. In no other sense than this does the term methodology make any (...) direct appeal to the working physicist, and if you would ask him to define his methods he would probably answer with a description of experimental technique or the methods of setting up and solving differential equations. His answer would tell you how he solves his problems, but hardly how he finds them and why he solves them. (shrink)

Imre Lakatos' philosophical and scientific papers are published here in two volumes. Volume I brings together his very influential but scattered papers on the philosophy of the physical sciences, and includes one important unpublished essay on the effect of Newton's scientific achievement. Volume II presents his work on the philosophy of mathematics, together with some critical essays on contemporary philosophers of science and some famous polemical writings on political and educational issues. Imre Lakatos had an influence out of all (...) proportion to the length of his philosophical career. This collection exhibits and confirms the originality, range and the essential unity of his work. It demonstrates too the force and spirit he brought to every issue with which he engaged, from his most abstract mathematical work to his passionate 'Letter to the director of the LSE'. Lakatos' ideas are now the focus of widespread and increasing interest, and these volumes should make possible for the first time their study as a whole and their proper assessment. (shrink)

The Unified Complex System Theory (UCST) takes the mind-ether dual ontology as its core foundation, constructing a global complex system framework encompassing matter, energy, and information. Based on the dual ontology and hierarchical coupling principle of UCST, this paper breaks the millennia-old dual opposition between the “pure discovery” and “pure invention” of mathematics in traditional philosophical discourse, and puts forward the core proposition that mathematics is the hierarchical isomorphic mapping of the objective structure of the real world by (...) the cognitive subject mind. On this theoretical premise, this paper innovatively establishes the UCST mathematical fundamental axiom system containing six interlocking core axioms, systematically reinterprets key core frontier topics in the foundations of mathematics such as infinite essence classification, intrinsic logic of set theory, physical attribution of continuum, and practical boundary of computability theory, and effectively dissolves the long-standing inherent logical paradoxes and theoretical dilemmas within traditional mathematical philosophy and the classical foundations of mathematics. Meanwhile, taking the self-consistent UCST axiom system as the unified critical normative criterion, this paper systematically sorts out and reveals the universal cognitive deviation arising from the forced arbitrary transition of abstract high-dimensional mathematical formal models to concrete four-dimensional empirical physical reality in the theoretical construction process of modern mainstream physics. It further scientifically clarifies the essential ontological, epistemological, and methodological boundary between instrumental mathematics and empirical physics in the whole scientific research system. This research advocates that academic circles should return mathematics to its original instrumental essence of fitting and describing four-dimensional empirical natural laws, and theoretical physics should firmly adhere to the basic research boundary of observable, verifiable, and falsifiable real spacetime entities. Ultimately, the research realizes the self-consistent unity of the essence connotation of mathematics, the standardized reconstruction of the foundations of mathematics, the ontological logic of complex systems, and the core principles of physical empiricism, providing a novel, rigorous, and operable complex system comprehensive perspective for the innovative development of contemporary philosophy of mathematics and the normative rectification of philosophy of science. (shrink)

In this article I examine the dispute between F. H. Bradley and Bertrand Russell concerning the reality of relations. I show that Bradley’s objections to Russell’s view, that there are such things as relations which serve to effect the unity of complex items, were rooted in a methodological approach which Russell did not share. On Bradley’s view, one must be able to offer reductive analyses of the items one postulates in order that commitment to those items be justified. I argue (...) that Russell expressly rejected this methodological principle of Bradley’s, and instead adopted the view that one may justifiably postulate entities if doing so aids in the illumination of mathematical truths. I show that the postulation of relations does, on Russell’s view, serve to provide that illumination. Russell held that the truths of mathematics constitute fixed data, and that philosophical positions may be judged as successful according to the extent that they possess explanatory power with respect to this data. I argue that Bradley’s and Russell’s exchanges in print, as well as in private correspondence, reflect Russell’s awareness of a fundamental difference in methodological approach. I conclude that Russell elected not to answer Bradley’s objections on their own terms, but rather rejected the methodological assumptions from which those objections emerged. (shrink)

This chapter offers an overview of the philosophy of mathematics education. This sub-field is characterised in both narrow and broad terms, concerning the aims of mathematics education and all philosophical aspects of research in mathematics education, respectively. The sub-field is also explored in terms of its questions and practices, which can be called a bottom-up perspective, as well as in terms of the applications of branches of philosophy to mathematics education, which might be called a top-down (...) perspective. From the bottom-up one can characterize the area in terms of questions, and I have asked: What are the aims and purposes of teaching and learning mathematics? What is mathematics? How does mathematics relate to society? What is learning mathematics? What is mathematics teaching? What is the status of mathematics education as knowledge field? In characterizing the sub-field from a ‘top down’ perspective I look briefly at the contributions of ontology and metaphysics, aesthetics, epistemology and learning theory, social philosophy, ethics, and the research methodology of mathematics education. This reveals both how rich and deep the contributions of philosophy are to the theoretical foundations of our field of study. But even these different approaches leave many questions unanswered. For example: what are the responsibilities of mathematics and what is the responsibility of our own subfield, the philosophy of mathematics education? I conclude that the role of the philosophy of mathematics education is to analyse, question, challenge, and critique the claims of mathematics education practice, policy and research. (shrink)

Economic methodology has been dominated by developments in the philosophy of science. This book's central thesis is that a great deal can be gained by refocusing attention on developments in the philosophy of mathematics, in particular those that took place over the course of the twentieth century. In this book the authors argue that a close examination of the major developments in the philosophy of mathematics both deepens and enriches our understanding of the formalisation of economics, while (...) also offering novel methods of critically evaluating the strengths and limitations of formalism in economics. This book represents an innovative attempt to more fully understand the complexity of the interaction between developments in the philosophy of mathematics and the process of formalisation in economics. (shrink)

The authors present the main ideas of the computer-assisted proof of Mischaikow and Mrozek that chaos is really present in the Lorenz equations. Methodological consequences of this proof are examined. It is shown that numerical calculations can constitute an essential part of mathematical proof not only in the discrete mathematics but also in the mathematics of continua.

Whether aristotle wrote a work on mathematics as he did on physics is not known, and sources differ. this book attempts to present the main features of aristotle's philosophy of mathematics. methodologically, the presentation is based on aristotle's "posterior analytics", which discusses the nature of scientific knowledge and procedure. concerning aristotle's views on mathematics in particular, they are presented with the support of numerous references to his extant works. his criticism of his predecessors is added at the (...) end. (shrink)

This chapter argues that a due consideration of the nature of true mathematical ideas and the use to which Spinoza puts them against skeptical disputation suggest that his philosophical methodology is more Cartesian than has often been appreciated. The discussion of this chapter allows me to introduce a number of the major concepts and themes that scaffold the discussion of ensuing chapters, in particular, the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic features of ideas, the key epistemic notions of adequacy and (...) truth, the foundational role of God in Spinoza’s system, and the question of the reality of mathematical objects. (shrink)

In this paper, I assume, perhaps controversially, that translation into a language of formal logic is not the method by which mathematicians assess mathematical reasoning. Instead, I argue that the actual practice of analyzing, evaluating and critiquing mathematical reasoning resembles, and perhaps equates with, the practice of informal logic or argumentation theory. It doesn’t matter whether the reasoning is a full-fledged mathematical proof or merely some non-deductive mathematical justification: in either case, the methodology of assessment overlaps to a large (...) extent with argument assessment in non-mathematical contexts. I demonstrate this claim by considering the assessment of axiomatic or deductive proofs, probabilistic evidence, computer-aided proofs, and the acceptance of axioms. I also consider Jody Azzouni’s ‘derivation indicator’ view of proofs because it places derivations—which may be thought to invoke formal logic—at the center of mathematical justificatory practice. However, when the notion of ‘derivation’ at work in Azzouni’s view is clarified, it is seen to accord with, rather than to count against, the informal logical view I support. Finally, I pose several open questions for the development of a theory of mathematical argument. (shrink)

The article is devoted to identifying the value of the phenomenon of aesthetic value and beauty of mathematical knowledge and the beauty of mathematical theory of teaching mathematics. The aesthetic potential of mathematical knowledge allows the use of theater technology in the educational process with the active dialogic interaction between teacher and students. The criteria of beauty in mathematical theories are distinguished: the realization of beauty as the unity of the whole, and in the disclosure of the complex through (...) the elementary; methodological interpretation of the beauty in the community of mathematical structures and optimal information content of the meta-language of mathematics; the practical embodiment of beauty in the formalization of the infinite through the finite. The beauty of mathematics is the force that permeates all the ‘layers of knowledge‘ not along, and across, although the effectiveness of mathematical activity due to aesthetic laws, which do not always lend themselves to unambiguous interpretation. In the article it is stated that, depending on the educational goals of communicative impact on the audience, in fact, ‘mathematical lectures theatricality‘ can have different characteristics, the most important of which are teachers artistry and artistic director’s work of a teacher. This cultural phenomenon that includes the theatrical talent, helps create an atmosphere of cooperation needed in varying degrees of activity for pedagogical interaction. The author believes that such approach, developed on the basis of the Stanislavsky system, allows university professors of mathematics significantly improve mathematical lectures. (shrink)

Abraham Robinson’s framework for modern infinitesimals was developed half a century ago. It enables a re-evaluation of the procedures of the pioneers of mathematical analysis. Their procedures have been often viewed through the lens of the success of the Weierstrassian foundations. We propose a view without passing through the lens, by means of proxies for such procedures in the modern theory of infinitesimals. The real accomplishments of calculus and analysis had been based primarily on the elaboration of novel techniques for (...) solving problems rather than a quest for ultimate foundations. It may be hopeless to interpret historical foundations in terms of a punctiform continuum, but arguably it is possible to interpret historical techniques and procedures in terms of modern ones. Our proposed formalisations do not mean that Fermat, Gregory, Leibniz, Euler, and Cauchy were pre-Robinsonians, but rather indicate that Robinson’s framework is more helpful in understanding their procedures than a Weierstrassian framework. (shrink)

Haskell Curry’s philosophy of mathematics is really a form of “structuralism” rather than “formalism” despite Curry’s own description of it as formalist (Seldin 2011). This paper explains Curry’s actual view by a formal analysis of a simple example. This analysis is extended to solve Keränen’s (2001) identity problem for structuralism, confirming Leitgeb’s (2020a, b) solution, and further clarifies structural ontology. Curry’s methods answer philosophical questions by employing a standard mathematical method, which is a virtue of the “methodological autonomy” emphasized (...) by Curry (1951, 1963) and more recently with greater clarity by Maddy (1997, 2007). (shrink)

“Philosophy of Mathematical Practice” (PMP) refers to a broad cluster of approaches in the philosophy of mathematics. These approaches share a common focus on philosophical issues arising from actual mathematical practice. It is also characteristic of PMP to consider philosophical problems in the context of specific historical or current mathematical practices. While there have been attempts to more precisely define the notion of mathematical practice, all that needs to be understood by this, as a first approximation, is mathematics (...) as practiced by mathematicians ranging from heuristic informal strategies to formalized developments. -/- Typically, approaches within PMP reject a-historical conceptions of mathematics and are open to interdisciplinary research. PMP has been characterized by an innovative focus on aspects of mathematics largely neglected in 20th-century analytic philosophy of mathematics. Foundational concerns and the problem of access to abstract mathematical entities, despite their importance, resulted in an impoverished approach to the philosophy of mathematics, which was often limited to the discussion of set theory and arithmetic. The questions philosophers of mathematical practice ask call for a dramatic extension of the domain of philosophical investigation as conceived in the previous tradition, as well for alternative perspectives on traditional problems. Examples of such questions are: Why do mathematicians prove the same theorem multiple times? Are there virtues of proofs other than correctness? What is mathematical explanation? What are the epistemic roles of visualization in mathematics? What are mathematical notations, and how do they function? What constitutes progress in mathematics, and how is it achieved? How does the use of computational tools influence mathematical practice? Not all these questions are new, and PMP recognizes its debt to certain aspects of investigation that had emerged from Lakatos’ (1976) approach to the philosophy of mathematics as well as to particular trends of investigations (such as Maddy 1997) within the more traditional analytic philosophy of mathematics. -/- PMP pushes the boundaries of the philosophy of mathematics by endorsing a broad conception of what areas of mathematics should be object of philosophical attention, extending the range of questions, and introducing new methodologies. Although the philosophy of mathematical practice is placed under the heading ‘the Future’ in the entry on philosophy of mathematics, it has dramatically increased in popularity in the past decades and has generated a remarkable amount of philosophical research. For instance, a considerable number of articles in PMP are included in the recent massive volume (of more than 3,000 pages) Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Mathematical Practice (Sriraman 2024). Moreover, some of the themes first canvassed within the philosophy of mathematical practice are becoming of more general interest. Indeed, in some cases, such as explanation in mathematics – a topic whose analysis was pioneered by philosophers of mathematical practice – the area has become one of the most widely discussed by analytic philosophers of mathematics. (shrink)

Imre Lakatos' views on the philosophy of mathematics are important and they have often been underappreciated. The most obvious lacuna in this respect is the lack of detailed discussion and analysis of his 1976a paper and its implications for the methodology of mathematics, particularly its implications with respect to argumentation and the matter of how truths are established in mathematics. The most important themes that run through his work on the philosophy of mathematics and which (...) culminate in the 1976a paper are (1) the (quasi-)empirical character of mathematics and (2) the rejection of axiomatic deductivism as the basis of mathematical knowledge. In this paper Lakatos' later views on the quasi-empirical nature of mathematical theories and methodology are examined and specific attention is paid to what this view implies about the nature of mathematical argumentation and its relation to the empirical sciences. (shrink)