A. C. Paseau

Naturalism in the philosophy of mathematics is the view that philosophy cannot legitimately gainsay mathematics. I distinguish between reinterpretation and reconstruction naturalism: the former states that philosophy cannot legitimately sanction a reinterpretation of mathematics (i.e. an interpretation different from the standard one); the latter that philosophy cannot legitimately change standard mathematics (as opposed to its interpretation). I begin by showing that neither form of naturalism is self-refuting. I then focus on reinterpretation naturalism, which comes in two forms, and examine the only available argument for it. I argue that this argument, the so-called Failure Argument, itself fails. My overall conclusion is that although there is no self-refutation argument against reinterpretation naturalism, there are as yet no good reasons to accept it. Naturalism in mathematics The consistency of mathematical naturalism The failure argument Objections to the failure argument Philosophy as the default.

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

From title to back cover, a polemic runs through David Corfield's "Towards a Philosophy of Real Mathematics". Corfield repeatedly complains that philosophers of mathematics have ignored the interesting and important mathematical developments of the past seventy years, ‘filtering’ the details of mathematical practice out of philosophical discussion. His aim is to remedy the discipline’s long-sightedness and, by precept and example, to redirect philosophical attention towards current developments in mathematics. This review discusses some strands of Corfield’s philosophy of real mathematics and briefly assesses some of his objections to orthodox philosophy of mathematics.

Mathematicians do not claim to know a proposition unless they think they possess a proof of it. For all their confidence in the truth of a proposition with weighty non-deductive support, they maintain that, strictly speaking, the proposition remains unknown until such time as someone has proved it. This article challenges this conception of knowledge, which is quasi-universal within mathematics. We present four arguments to the effect that non-deductive evidence can yield knowledge of a mathematical proposition. We also show that some of what mathematicians take to be deductive knowledge is in fact non-deductive. 1 Introduction2 Why It Might Matter3 Two Further Examples and Preliminaries4 An Exclusive Epistemic Virtue of Proof?5 Analyses of Knowledge6 The Inductive Basis of Deduction7 Physical to Mathematical Linkages8 Conclusion.

Fitch's argument purports to show that if all truths are knowable then all truths are known. The argument exploits the fact that the knowledge predicate or operator is untyped and may thus apply to sentences containing itself. This article outlines a response to Fitch's argument based on the idea that knowledge is typed. The first part of the article outlines the philosophical motivation for the view, comparing it to the motivation behind typing truth. The second, formal part presents a logic in which knowledge is typed and demonstrates that it allows nonlogical truths to be knowable yet unknown.

It is commonly assumed that classical logic is the embodiment of a realist ontology. In “Sets and Semantics”, however, Jonathan Lear challenged this assumption in the particular case of set theory, arguing that even if one is a set-theoretic Platonist, due attention to a special feature of set theory leads to the conclusion that the correct logic for it is intuitionistic. The feature of set theory Lear appeals to is the open-endedness of the concept of set. This article advances reasons internal to Lear’s account to show that his argument for intuitionistic set theory is unsuccessful.

James Walmsley in “Categoricity and Indefinite Extensibility” argues that a realist about some branch of mathematics X (e.g. arithmetic) apparently cannot use the categoricity of an axiomatisation of X to justify her belief that every sentence of the language of X has a truth-value. My note corrects Walmsley’s formulation of his claim, and shows that his argument for it hinges on the implausible idea that grasping that there is some model of the axioms amounts to grasping that there is a unique such model.

Pure second-order logic is second-order logic without functional or first-order variables. In "Pure Second-Order Logic," Denyer shows that pure second-order logic is compact and that its notion of logical truth is decidable. However, his argument does not extend to pure second-order logic with second-order identity. We give a more general argument, based on elimination of quantifiers, which shows that any formula of pure second-order logic with second-order identity is equivalent to a member of a circumscribed class of formulas. As a corollary, pure second-order logic with second-order identity is compact, its notion of logical truth is decidable, and it satisfies a pure second-order analogue of model completeness. We end by mentioning an extension to n th-order pure logics

Mathematical instrumentalism construes some parts of mathematics, typically the abstract ones, as an instrument for establishing statements in other parts of mathematics, typically the elementary ones. Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem seems to show that one cannot prove the consistency of all of mathematics from within elementary mathematics. It is therefore generally thought to defeat instrumentalisms that insist on a proof of the consistency of abstract mathematics from within the elementary portion. This article argues that though some versions of mathematical instrumentalism are defeated by Gödel’s theorem, not all are. By considering inductive reasons in mathematics, we show that some mathematical instrumentalisms survive the theorem.