Otávio Bueno

Structuralism and factualism are two significant metaphysical views about the fundamental traits of the world. Structuralism characterizes these traits in terms of structures, which, in turn, are either taken as primitive or accounted for mathematically in ways that may not settle what they are metaphysically (French, The structure of the world: metaphysics and representation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014). Factualism takes fundamental traits of the world to be facts, which, in turn, either have constituents (Cumpa, A materialist criterion of fundamentality. Am Philos Q 51:319–324, 2014; Factualism and the scientific image. Int J Philos Stud 26:669–678, 2018) or do not, in which case their ultimate nature is similarly left open. These are importantly different accounts of the fundamental, which despite some surface similarities, turn out to be incompatible with one another. Can the debate between them be settled? Is there a fact of the matter to achieve that? In this paper, I argue that it is unclear how to offer conclusive answers to these questions, and advance an alternative, deflationary way of making sense of the debate.

Mona Simion and Christoph Kelp (2020) have recently challenged the traditional conceptual engineering project. They defend a reorientation of this project that moves away from correcting conceptual shortcomings and emphasizes conceptual innovation instead. Central to their proposal is the role played by etiological functions. The present paper argues that this approach leaves them without a specific mechanism for conceptual innovation. It then proposes one such mechanism, which operates independently of functions, by identifying the crucial role of conceptual refinement. After developing the refinement‐based approach, it illustrates how this approach works by considering instances of refined conceptual change from mathematics and logic as well as the sciences, and argues that the approach avoids the challenges faced by the function‐based view.

Some dialetheists have claimed that one of the central advantages of their approach to the Paradoxes of Self-Reference is that they are able to offer a unified solution to structurally similar paradoxes that arise in the semantic and set-theoretic realms (Priest in Mind 103:25–34, [12] and Beyond the limits of thought. Clarendon Press, Oxford, [16]). They argue that since the structures of all of these paradoxes conform with the Inclosure Schema (IS), the Principle of Uniform Solution (PUS) dictates that we should solve them all the same way. But the dialetheist’s approach to PUS collapses when it comes to the Curry Paradox, to which any solution based on dialetheism seems inapplicable. We show that a particular version of a ‘paracomplete’ theory (inspired by Field in Saving truth from paradox. Oxford University Press, Oxford, [8]) has available to it a way of avoiding these problems that the dialetheist cannot mirror without losing Modus Ponens. JC Beall has suggested a way of minimizing this loss, but Beall’s strategy runs up against a further difficulty about the PUS. This one involves the Irrationalist’s Paradox. We conclude with a dilemma: The dialetheist can either reject the principles that are used to accommodate ordinary reasoning when Modus Ponens or Disjunctive Syllogism fail, and thus live without the ability to mimic these inferences, or they can sacrifice the Principle of Uniform Solution by solving an extremely Liar-like semantic paradox in a way that has nothing to do with their solution to the Liar and Curry’s Paradox. In either case, the prospects for a plausible and truly uniform dialetheic solution to the paradoxes of self-reference are grim.

Typical accounts of reference demand that referring terms denote existent objects. This assumption is shared by theories across a variety of areas of philosophy, in particular, direct reference views in philosophy of language; neo-Fregean conceptions in the philosophy of mathematics, and easy-ontology approaches in metaphysics. In this paper, this assumption is resisted and the significance and the possibility of referring to the nonexistent is highlighted. After identifying difficulties in all these three theories and resisting a free-logic approach, ontologically neutral quantifiers, which do not require the existence of what is quantified over, are suggested as providing a better conception. It is concluded that the difficulties raised to the previous theories do not affect the ontologically neutral approach, while the approach, properly conceived, allows for nonexistent objects to have properties.

This comprehensive collection of original essays written by an international group of scholars addresses the central themes in Latin American philosophy. Represents the most comprehensive survey of historical and contemporary Latin American philosophy available today Comprises a specially commissioned collection of essays, many of them written by Latin American authors Examines the history of Latin American philosophy and its current issues, traces the development of the discipline, and offers biographical sketches of key Latin American thinkers Showcases the diversity of approaches, issues, and styles that characterize the field.

Proofs are central to mathematical practice in large part due to the heuristic role that some of them play. Not only do they help establish a result, but often provide new avenues of mathematical research. Jody Azzouni has argued that underlying the practice of creating mathematical proofs there is a very specific norm: to each proof there should be a corresponding algorithmic derivation, a derivation in an algorithmic system. Here a framework is provided to classify and assess mathematical proofs. It is argued that there is a plurality of kinds of proofs in mathematics and a plurality of roles these proofs play. In the end, mathematical practice is far less unified in this respect than it may seem to be.

Crucial to Hilary Putnam’s realism in the philosophy of mathematics is to maintain the objectivity of mathematics without the commitment to the existence of mathematical objects. Putnam’s indispensability argument was devised as part of this conception. In this paper, I reconstruct and reassess Putnam’s argument for the indispensability of mathematics, and distinguish it from the more familiar, Quinean version of the argument. Although I argue that Putnam’s approach ultimately fails, I develop an alternative way of implementing his form of realism about mathematics that, by using different resources than those Putnam invokes, avoids the difficulties faced by his view.

In this paper, I shall discuss the heuristic role of symmetry in the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics. I shall first set out the scene in terms of Bas van Fraassen’s elegant presentation of how symmetry principles can be used as problem-solving devices (see van Fraassen [1989] and [1991]). I will then examine in what ways Hermann Weyl and John von Neumann have used symmetry principles in their work as a crucial problem-solving tool. Finally, I shall explore one consequence of this situation to recent debates about structural realism (SR) and empiricism in physics (Worrall [1989], Ladyman [1998], and French [1999]).

Batterman raises a number of concerns for the inferential conception of the applicability of mathematics advocated by Bueno and Colyvan. Here, we distinguish the various concerns, and indicate how they can be assuaged by paying attention to the nature of the mappings involved and emphasizing the significance of interpretation in this context. We also indicate how this conception can accommodate the examples that Batterman draws upon in his critique. Our conclusion is that ‘asymptotic reasoning’ can be straightforwardly accommodated within the inferential conception. 1 Introduction2 Immersion, Inference and Partial Structures3 Idealization and Surplus Structure4 Renormalization and the Stability of Mathematical Representations5 Explanation and Eliminability6 Requirements for Explanation7 Interpretation and Idealization8 Explanation, Empirical Regularities and the Inferential Conception9 Conclusion.

Thirteen up-and-coming researchers in the philosophy of mathematics have been invited to write on what they take to be the right philosophical account of mathematics, examining along the way where they think the philosophy of mathematics is and ought to be going. A rich and diverse picture emerges. Some broader tendencies can nevertheless be detected: there is increasing attention to the practice, language and psychology of mathematics, a move to reassess the orthodoxy, as well as inspiration from philosophical logic.

Philosophers are very fond of making non-factualist claims—claims to the effect that there is no fact of the matter as to whether something is the case. But can these claims be coherently stated in the context of classical logic? Some care is needed here, we argue, otherwise one ends up denying a tautology or embracing a contradiction. In the end, we think there are only two strategies available to someone who wants to be a non-factualist about something, and remain within the province of classical logic. But one of these strategies is rather controversial, and the other requires substantially more work than is often supposed. Being a non-factualist is no easy business, and it may not be the most philosophically perspicuous way to go.

There has always been interest in inconsistency in science, not least within science itself as scientists strive to devise a consistent picture of the universe. Some important early landmarks in this history are Copernicus’s criticism of the Ptolemaic picture of the heavens, Galileo’s claim that Aristotle’s theory of motion was inconsistent, and Berkeley’s claim that the early calculus was inconsistent. More recent landmarks include the classical theory of the electron, Bohr’s theory of the atom, and the on-going difficulty of reconciling Einstein’s general relativity and quantum theory. But over the past few decades philosophers have taken a particular and increasing interest in inconsistency in science. In 2002 this culminated in the first collection of articles specifically dedicated to the topic: Inconsistency in Science, edited by Joke Meheus, published by Kluwer, and featuring twelve articles on a range of topics in the philosophy of science and mathematics.Since then philosophic.

In this paper, I shall provide a defence of second-order logic in the context of its use in the philosophy of mathematics. This shall be done by considering three problems that have been recently posed against this logic: (1) According to Resnik [1988], by adopting second-order quantifiers, we become ontologically committed to classes. (2) As opposed to what is claimed by defenders of second-order logic (such as Shapiro [1985]), the existence of non-standard models of first-order theories does not establish the inadequacy of first—order axiomatisations (Melia [1995]). (3) In contrast with Shapiro’s suggestion (in his [1985]), second-order logic does not help us to establish referential access to mathematical objects (Azzouni [1994]). As I shall argue, each of these problems can be neatly solved by the second-order theorist. As a result, a case for second-order logic can be made. The first two problems will beconsidered rather briefly in the next section. The rest of the paper is dedicate to a discussion of the third.

In order to develop an account of scientific rationality, two problems need to be addressed: (i) how to make sense of episodes of theory change in science where the lack of a cumulative development is found, and (ii) how to accommodate cases of scientific change where lack of consistency is involved. In this paper, we sketch a model of scientific rationality that accommodates both problems. We first provide a framework within which it is possible to make sense of scientific revolutions, but which still preserves some (partial) relations between old and new theories. The existence of these relations help to explain why the break between different theories is never too radical as to make it impossible for one to interpret the process in perfectly rational terms. We then defend the view that if scientific theories are taken to be quasi-true, and if the underlying logic is paraconsistent, it's perfectly rational for scientists and mathematicians to entertain inconsistent theories without triviality. As a result, as opposed to what is demanded by traditional approaches to rationality, it's not irrational to entertain inconsistent theories. Finally, we conclude the paper by arguing that the view advanced here provides a new way of thinking about the foundations of science. In particular, it extends in important respects both coherentist and foundationalist approaches to knowledge, without the troubles that plague traditional views of scientific rationality.

The blame for the semantic and set-theoretic paradoxes is often placed on self-reference and circularity. Some years ago, Yablo [1985; 1993] challenged this diagnosis, by producing a paradox that's liar-like but does not seem to involve circularity. But is Yablo's paradox really non-circular? In a recent paper, Beall [2001] has suggested that there are no means available to refer to Yablo's paradox without invoking descriptions, and since Priest [1997] has shown that any such description is circular, Beall concludes that Yablo's paradox itself is circular. In this paper, we argue that Beall's conclusion is unwarranted, given that (1) descriptions are not the only way to refer to Yablo's paradox, and (ii) we have no reason to believe that because the description involves self-reference, the denotation of the description is also circular. As a result, for all that's been said so far, we have no reason to believe that Yablo's paradox is circular.