Ladislav Kvasz

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

The aim of this paper is to compare two approaches to semantics, namely the standard Tarskian theory and Wittgenstein’s picture theory of meaning. I will compare them with respect to an unusual subject matter, namely to geometrical pictures. The choice of geometry rather than arithmetic or set theory as the basis, on which this comparison will be made has two reasons. One reason is related to Wittgenstein’s picture theory of meaning. This theory was developed more or less as a metaphor, comparing the language to a picture. Nevertheless, if we take pictures themselves in the role of the language to which we apply Wittgenstein’s picture theory of meaning, this theory stops being a metaphor and starts to work in a technical way. I believe that in this way we can create a new approach to semantics in geometry. The other reason for taking geometry as the basis for our investigation is that the Tarskian approach to semantics does not work in geometry as we would wish