Review of Symbolic Logic 11 (4):665-704 (2018)

Yacin Hamami
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
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.
Keywords mathematical inference  logical inference  mathematical proof  formal proof
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S1755020317000326
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,410
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What Are Logical Notions?Alfred Tarski - 1986 - History and Philosophy of Logic 7 (2):143-154.
Relevant Implication.David Lewis - 1988 - Theoria 54 (3):161-174.
Frege, Kant, and the Logic in Logicism.John MacFarlane - 2002 - Philosophical Review 111 (1):25-65.
Why Do We Prove Theorems?Yehuda Rav - 1999 - Philosophia Mathematica 7 (1):5-41.
Logicality and Invariance.Denis Bonnay - 2006 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 14 (1):29-68.

View all 43 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Plans and Planning in Mathematical Proofs.Yacin Hamami & Rebecca Lea Morris - forthcoming - Review of Symbolic Logic:1-40.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Logical Inference and Its Dynamics.Carlotta Pavese - June 2016 - In Tamminga Allard, Willer Malte & Roy Olivier (eds.), Deontic Logic and Normative Systems. College Publications. pp. 203-219.
Poincaré Against the Logicians.Michael Detlefsen - 1992 - Synthese 90 (3):349 - 378.
Assertion, Inference, and Consequence.Peter Pagin - 2012 - Synthese 187 (3):869 - 885.
Inference Without Reckoning.Susanna Siegel - 2019 - In Brendan Balcerak Jackson & Magdalena Balcerak Jackson (eds.), Reasoning: New Essays on Theoretical and Practical Thinking. Oxford University Press. pp. 15-31.
On Structurality of Rules of Inference.Tadeusz Kubi Nski - 1965 - [Zakld Narodowy Im. Ossoli Nskich].
When Can Non‐Commutative Statistical Inference Be Bayesian?Miklós Rédei - 1992 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 6 (2):129-132.
Deflationism and Logic.Christopher Gauker - 1999 - Facta Philosophica (1):167-199.
Paradoxical Individual Differences in Conditional Inference.Mike Oaksford & Jo Sellen - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):691-692.


Added to PP index

Total views
93 ( #127,149 of 2,519,700 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #205,238 of 2,519,700 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes