Probabilistic proofs and transferability

Philosophia Mathematica 17 (3):341-362 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In a series of papers, Don Fallis points out that although mathematicians are generally unwilling to accept merely probabilistic proofs, they do accept proofs that are incomplete, long and complicated, or partly carried out by computers. He argues that there are no epistemic grounds on which probabilistic proofs can be rejected while these other proofs are accepted. I defend the practice by presenting a property I call ‘transferability’, which probabilistic proofs lack and acceptable proofs have. I also consider what this says about the similarities between mathematics and, on the one hand natural sciences, and on the other hand philosophy



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,480

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles


Added to PP

388 (#28,168)

6 months
13 (#66,195)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Kenny Easwaran
Texas A&M University

References found in this work

Mathematical Truth.Paul Benacerraf - 1973 - Journal of Philosophy 70 (19):661-679.
Naturalism in Mathematics.Penelope Maddy - 1997 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

View all 18 references / Add more references