Ladislav Kvasz

Structural realism is an answer to the challenge posed for realism by the argument from the pessimistic meta-induction (Laudan 1981). It attempts to combine scientific realism with the existence of scientific revolutions in arguing that the mathematical structure of a scientific theory is preserved in the course of a scientific revolution. Structural realists maintain that this structure is the basis of the theory’s grip on reality. In the present paper I argue in favor of structural realism by addressing the questions of why the mathematical structure of a theory should be preserved and what kind of mathematical structure is actually preserved.

The aim of the paper is to argue for the cognitive unity of the mathematical results ascribed by ancient authors to Thales. These results are late ascriptions and so it is difficult to say anything certain about them on philological grounds. I will seek characteristic features of the cognitive unity of the mathematical results ascribed to Thales by comparing them with Galilean physics. This might seem at a first sight a rather unusual move. Nevertheless, I suggest viewing the process of turning geometry into an axiomatic-deductive science as a process of idealization in mathematics that is parallel to the process of idealization in physics. In Kvasz I offered an epistemological reconstruction of the process of idealization in physics during the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. In the present paper I try to employ these epistemological insights in the process of idealization in physics and propose a reconstruction of the cognitive unity of the mathematical results ascribed to Thales, who can, on the basis of these ascriptions, be seen as one of the initiators of idealization in mathematics.

The aim of the paper is to answer some arguments raised against mathematical structuralism developed by Michael Resnik. These arguments stress the abstractness of mathematical objects, especially their causal inertness, and conclude that mathematical objects, the structures posited by Resnik included, are inaccessible to human cognition. In the paper I introduce a distinction between abstract and ideal objects and argue that mathematical objects are primarily ideal. I reconstruct some aspects of the instrumental practice of mathematics, such as symbolic manipulations or ruler-and-compass constructions, and argue that instrumental practice can secure epistemic access to ideal objects of mathematics.

Cieľom predkladanej state je pokus o upresnenie Kuhnovej teórie vedeckých revolúcií. Navrhujem rozlíšiť pojem vedeckej revolúcie, ktorý označuje sociologický fakt zmeny postoja vedeckého spoločenstva vo vzťahu k určitej teórii a pojem epistemickej ruptúry, ktorý označuje lingvistický fakt diskontinuity jazykového rámca, v ktorom je táto teória formulovaná. Analýzou zmien jazykového rámca možno získať klasifikáciu epistemických ruptúr na štyri typy, nazvané ideácia, re-prezentácia, objektácia a re-formulácia. V stati je každý z týchto typov epistemických ruptúr ilustrovaný na sérii príkladov z dejín fyziky. Uvedené typy epistemických ruptúr úzko súvisia s vedeckými revolúciami. Klasifikácia epistemických ruptúr sa tak dá použiť ako východisko pri klasifikácii vedeckých revolúcií. Jednotlivé revolúcie možno klasifikovať podľa toho, akého druhu je epistemická ruptúra, ktorá príslušnú revolúciu sprevádza.

The aim of the paper is to clarify Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions. We propose to discriminate between a scientific revolution, which is a sociological event of a change of attitude of the scientific community with respect to a particular theory, and an epistemic rupture, which is a linguistic fact consisting of a discontinuity in the linguistic framework in which this theory is formulated. We propose a classification of epistemic ruptures into four types. In the paper, each of these types of epistemic ruptures is illustrated by examples from physics. The classification of epistemic ruptures can be used as a basis for a classification of scientific revolutions and thus for a refinement of our view of the progress of science.

The paper attempts to summarize the debate on Kant’s philosophy of geometry and to offer a restricted area of mathematical practice for which Kant’s philosophy would be a reasonable account. Geometrical theories can be characterized using Wittgenstein’s notion of pictorial form . Kant’s philosophy of geometry can be interpreted as a reconstruction of geometry based on one of these forms — the projective form . If this is correct, Kant’s philosophy is a reasonable reconstruction of such theories as projective geometry; and not only as they were practiced in Kant’s time, but also as architects use them today

Coming from a mathematical background, I was always puzzled by Popper’s view, according to which, after the falsification of a scientific theory its degree of corroboration becomes zero. Most of the scientific theories taught in the physics departments have already been falsified, and what is the point of teaching theories, whose degree of corroboration is zero? The first important observation to make is that not all cases of falsification are the same. In some cases, as for instance in the case of the theory of phlogiston, the falsification happened in agreement with the Popperian picture. Scientists discarded the falsified theory and opted for its alternative. Therefore, nowadays nobody tries to make a scientific contribution to the theory of phlogiston. Nevertheless, there are cases, and Newtonian mechanics is surely the most important among them, when the behaviour of the scientists after the falsification of the theory is from the Popperian point of view incomprehensible. Many scientists were not ready to discard the falsified theory, and not for irrational reasons. Some of the deepest discoveries in Newtonian mechanics as for instance the famous Kolmogorov, Arnold, Moser theorem were made many years after this theory was falsified. I think that Andrej Kolmogorov, Vladimir Arnold or Jürgen Moser cannot be compared to an Aristotelian philosopher, who adheres to his pet theory after its falsification. What these three mathematicians did was a fundamental contribution to modern science.

This paper offers an epistemological reconstruction of the historical development of algebra from al-Khwrizm, Cardano, and Descartes to Euler, Lagrange, and Galois. In the reconstruction it interprets the algebraic formulas as a symbolic language and analyzes the changes of this language in the course of history. It turns out that the most fundamental epistemological changes in the development of algebra can be interpreted as changes of the pictorial form of the symbolic language of algebra. Thus the paper develops further the method of reconstruction which the author introduced for the analysis of the development of geometry

Mathematics is traditionally considered being an apriori discipline consisting of purely analytic propositions. The aim of the present paper is to offer arguments against this entrenched view and to draw attention to the experiential dimension of mathematical knowledge. Following Husserl’s interpretation of physical knowledge as knowledge constituted by the use of instruments, I am trying to interpret mathematical knowledge also as acknowledge based on instrumental experience. This interpretation opens a new view on the role of the logicist program, both in philosophy of mathematics and in philosophy of science

There are many interpretations of the birth of modern science. Most of them are, nevertheless, confined to the analysis of certain historical episodes or technical details, while leaving the very notion of mathematization unanalyzed. In my opinion this is due to a lack of a proper philosophical framework which would show the process of mathematization as something radically new. Most historians assume that the world is just like it is depicted by science. Thus they are not aware of the radical novelty of the mathematization of nature and focus their attention on the details of this process. Phenomenology by its radical questioning of the traditional interpretations of reality provides an ideal means for the reconstruction of the process of mathematization of nature and the birth of mathematical natural science. In a series of papers I tried to show the power of Husserl 's concept of mathematization by filling in the historical details into his interpretation. In the present article I want to compare Husserl 's approach with the approach of Heidegger. I believe that by comparing these two phenomenological theories of mathematization the advantages of Husserl 's approach will come to the fore. _German_ Es gibt mehrere Interpretationen der Entstehung der modernen Wissenschaft. Die meisten von ihnen beschränken sich allerdings auf die Analyse bestimmter historischer Episoden oder technischer Details, während der Begriff der Mathematisierung unanalysiert bleibt. Meiner Meinung nach ist dies auf das Fehlen eines richtigen philosophischen Rahmens zurückzuführen, der den Prozess der Mathematisierung als etwas radikal Neues zeigen würde. Die meisten Historiker gehen davon aus, dass die Welt so ist, wie sie von der Wissenschaft dargestellt wird. So verkennen sie die Radikalität der Mathematisierung der Natur und konzentrieren ihre Aufmerksamkeit auf die Details dieses Prozesses. Die Phänomenologie bietet dank ihrer radikalen Kritik der traditionellen Interpretationen der Realität ein ideales Mittel für die Rekonstruktion des Prozesses der Mathematisierung der Natur und der Geburt der mathematischen Naturwissenschaft. In einer Reihe von Arbeiten habe ich versucht, die Stärke der Husserlschen Interpretation der Mathematisierung zu zeigen, indem ich die historischen Details in seine Interpretation einfügte. Im vorliegenden Artikel möchte ich Husserls Ansatz mit dem Ansatz von Heidegger vergleichen. Durch diesen Vergleich der beiden phänomenologischen Theorien der Mathematisierung der Natur werden die Vorteile von Husserls Ansatz in den Vordergrund treten

The aim of the present paper is to describe the fundamental epistemic ruptures, which occurred during the history of physics. Our approach is based on the reconstruction of the changes in the formal language of a particular physical discipline. We take into account aspects like the analytic, expressive or explanatory power, as well as analytic and expressive boundaries. One of the main results of our reconstruction is a new interpretation of Kant’s famous antinomies of pure reason. If we are prepared to relativise some of Kant’s antinomies, and instead of ascribing them to reason as such we relate them to the language of physics, it is possible to show, that these antinomies are relevant even for modern physics. Taking the form of a phenomenon, that we call the expressive boundaries of language are the antinomies a universal feature of all physical theories. This shows, that Kant in his antinomies pointed to a remarkable epistemological fact