This book explores the interplay between logic and science, describing new trends, new issues and potential research developments.

In this work I study the main tenets of the logicist philosophy of mathematics. I deal, basically, with two problems: (1) To what extent can one dispense with intuition in mathematics? (2) What is the appropriate logic for the purposes of logicism? By means of my considerations I try to determine the pros and cons of logicism. My standpoint favors the logicist line of thought. -/- .

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries many mathematicians referred to intuition as the indispensable research tool for obtaining new results. In this essay we will analyse a group of mathematicians who interacted with Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer in order to compare their conceptions of intuition. We will see how to the same word “intuition” very different meanings corresponded: they varied from geometrical vision, to a unitary view of a demonstration, to the perception of time, to the faculty of considering concepts (...) that habitually occur in our thinking separately. Furthermore, we will discover that these different meanings had a philosophical, very relevant counterside: they passed from a racial characterization of mathematics to a pluralistic view of it. (shrink)

Mathematicians often speak of conjectures, yet unproved, as probable or well-confirmed by evidence. The Riemann Hypothesis, for example, is widely believed to be almost certainly true. There seems no initial reason to distinguish such probability from the same notion in empirical science. Yet it is hard to see how there could be probabilistic relations between the necessary truths of pure mathematics. The existence of such logical relations, short of certainty, is defended using the theory of logical probability (or objective Bayesianism (...) or non-deductive logic), and some detailed examples of its use in mathematics surveyed. Examples of inductive reasoning in experimental mathematics are given and it is argued that the problem of induction is best appreciated in the mathematical case. (shrink)

Resumen: Janet Folina ha propuesto una interpretación del convencionalismo de Poincaré contraria a la que ofrecen Michael Friedman y Robert DiSalle. Ambos afirman que la propuesta de Poincaré queda refutada por la relati-vidad general pues supone una noción restrictiva de los principios a priori. Folina sostiene que el convencionalismo de Poincaré no es contradictorio con la relatividad general porque permite una noción relativizada de los princi-pios a priori. Intento mostrar que la estrategia de Folina es ineficaz porque Poincaré no puede (...) explicar el papel de la variedad de Riemann en la rela-tividad general. Concluyo que la tentativa de reconstruir el desarrollo de la relatividad general a partir de la filosofía de Poincaré puede constituir un obs-táculo para comprender la radicalidad del cambio que la relatividad generó en las relaciones entre física y geometría.: Janet Folina has proposed an interpretation of Poincaré’s conven-tionalism against Michael Friedman and Robert DiSalle. They both state that Poincaré’s proposal is refuted by general relativity, since it implies a restrictive notion of a priori principles. Folina claims that Poincaré’s conventionalism is not in conflict with general relativity because from Poincaré’s proposal it is possible to extract a relativized notion of a priori principles. I intend to show that Folina’s strategy is ineffective due to Poincaré’s inability to explain the role of Riemann manifold in general relativity. I conclude that the attempt to reconstruct the development of general relativity from Poincaré’s philosophy may be an obstacle to understanding the radical nature of the change that relativity brought to the relationship between physics and geometry. (shrink)

Ordinary mathematical proofs—to be distinguished from formal derivations—are the locus of mathematical knowledge. Their epistemic content goes way beyond what is summarised in the form of theorems. Objections are raised against the formalist thesis that every mainstream informal proof can be formalised in some first-order formal system. Foundationalism is at the heart of Hilbert's program and calls for methods of formal logic to prove consistency. On the other hand, ‘systemic cohesiveness’, as proposed here, seeks to explicate why mathematical knowledge is (...) coherent (in an informal sense) and places the problem of reliability within the province of the philosophy of mathematics. (shrink)

This paper is composed of two independent parts. The first is concerned with Russell’s early philosophy of mathematics and his quarrel with Poincaré about the nature of their opposition. I argue that the main divergence between the two philosophers was about the nature of definitions. In the second part, I briefly present Le!niewski’s Ontology and suggest that Le!niewski’s original treatment of definitions in the foundations of mathematics is the natural solution to the problem that divided Russell and Poincaré.

In its origins Dialogical logic constituted one part of a new movement called the Erlangen School or Erlangen Constructivism. Its goal was to provide a new start to a general theory of language and of science. According to the Erlangen-School, language is not just a fact that we discover, but a human cultural accomplishment whose construction reason can and should control. The resulting project of intentionally constructing a scientific language was called the Orthosprache-project. Unfortunately, the Orthosprache-project was not further developed (...) and seemed to fade away. It is possible that one of the reasons for this fading away is that the link between dialogical logic and Orthosprache was not sufficiently developed - in particular, the new theory of meaning to be found in dialogical logic seemed to be cut off from both the project of establishing the basis for scientific language and also from a general theory of meaning. We would like to contribute to clarifying one possible way in which a general dialogical theory of meaning could be linked to dialogical logic. The idea behind the proposal is to make use of constructive type theory in which logical inferences are preceded by the description of a fully interpreted language. The latter, we think, provides the means for a new start not only for the project of Orthosprache, but also for a general dialogical theory of meaning. (shrink)

often insisted existence in mathematics means logical consistency, and formal logic is the sole guarantor of rigor. The paper joins this to his view of intuition and his own mathematics. It looks at predicativity and the infinite, Poincaré's early endorsement of the axiom of choice, and Cantor's set theory versus Zermelo's axioms. Poincaré discussed constructivism sympathetically only once, a few months before his death, and conspicuously avoided committing himself. We end with Poincaré on Couturat, Russell, and Hilbert.

En sus orígenes la lógica dialógica constituyó la fundamentación lógica de un nuevo movimiento llamado Escuela de Erlangen o Constructivismo de Erlangen, el que debía proporcionar un nuevo comienzo a una teoría general del lenguaje y de la ciencia. En lo referente a teoría general del lenguaje, la Escuela de Erlangen afirma que el lenguaje no es un hecho que descubrimos, sino una realización cultural humana cuya construcción puede y debe ser controlada. El proyecto de un desarrollo constructivo de un (...) lenguaje científico fue llamado Orthosprache. Desafortunadamente, este proyecto no fue continuado y de alguna manera parecía desvanecerse. Quizás podríamos decir que una de las razones es que los lazos semánticos entre lógica dialógica, que se restringió a la semántica de la constantes lógicas y las aspiraciones lingüísticas más generales de la Orthosprache, no fueron desarrollados suficientemente y, entonces, la nueva teoría del significado de la lógica dialógica parecía haber sido separada del proyecto de establecer una teoría general del significado.En este artículo nos proponemos presentar una forma posible en la cual una teoría dialógica general del significado podría estar relacionada con lógica dialógica. Más precisamente, el objetivo principal del artículo es establecer las bases para el significado de las frases elementales en el contexto de la interacción dialógica. (shrink)

Inferential communities are communities using specific substantial argumentative schemes. The religious or scientific communities are examples. I discuss the status of the mathematical community as it appears through the position held by the French mathematician Henri Poincaré during his famous ar-guments with Russell, Hilbert, Peano and Cantor. The paper focuses on the status of complete induction and how logic and psychology shape the community of mathematicians and the teaching of mathematics.

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 infinite regress of Carroll’s ‘What the Tortoise said to Achilles’ is interpreted as a problem in the epistemology of mathematical proof. An approach to the problem that is both diagrammatic and non-logical is presented with respect to a specific inference of elementary geometry.

The deviation of mathematical proof—proof in mathematical practice—from the ideal of formal proof—proof in formal logic—has led many philosophers of mathematics to reconsider the commonly accepted view according to which the notion of formal proof provides an accurate descriptive account of mathematical proof. This, in turn, has motivated a search for alternative accounts of mathematical proof purporting to be more faithful to the reality of mathematical practice. Yet, in order to develop and evaluate such alternative accounts, it appears as a (...) necessary prerequisite to first possess a clear picture of what the deviation of mathematical proof from formal proof consists in. The present work aims to contribute building such a picture by investigating the relation between the elementary steps of deduction constituting the two types of proofs—mathematical inference and logical inference. Many claims have been made in the literature regarding the relation between mathematical inference and logical inference, most of them stating that the former is lacking properties that are constitutive of the latter. Such differentiating claims are, however, usually put forward without a clear conception of the properties occurring in them, and are generally considered to be immediately justified by our direct acquaintance, or phenomenological experience, with the two types of inferences. The present study purports to advance our understanding of the relation between mathematical inference and logical inference by developing a detailed philosophical analysis of the differentiating claims, that is, an analysis of the meaning of the differentiating claims—through the properties that occur in them—as well as the reasons that support them. To this end, we provide at the outset a representative list of the different properties of logical inference that have occurred in the differentiating claims, and we notice that they all boil down to the three properties of formality, generality, and mechanicality. For each one of these properties, our analysis proceeds in two steps: we first provide precise conceptual characterizations of the different ways logical inference has been said to be formal, general, and mechanical, in the philosophical and logical literature on formal proof; we then examine why mathematical inference does not appear to be formal, general, and mechanical, for the different variations of these notions identified. Our study results in a precise conceptual apparatus for expressing and discussing the properties differentiating mathematical inference from logical inference, and provides a first inventory of the various reasons supporting the observations of those differences. The differentiating claims constitute thus a set of data that any philosophical account of mathematical inference and proof purporting to be more faithful to mathematical practice ought to be able to accommodate and explain. (shrink)