Carlo Cellucci

The universal generalization problem is the question: What entitles one to conclude that a property established for an individual object holds for any individual object in the domain? This amounts to the question: Why is the rule of universal generalization justified? In the modern and contemporary age Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Mill, Gentzen gave alternative solutions of the universal generalization problem. In this paper I consider Locke’s, Berkeley’s and Gentzen’s solutions and argue that they are problematic. Then I consider an alternative formulation of universal generalization which depends on the view that mathematical objects are individual objects and are hypotheses introduced to solve mathematical problems, and that mathematical proofs are argument schemata. I argue that this alternative formulation allows one to overcome the problems of Locke’s, Berkeley’s and Gentzen’s solutions, and is related to the approach to generality in Greek mathematics. I also argue that there is a connection between the present formulation of universal generalization and a special form of the analogy rule which is implicit in Proclus’ approach to the universal generalization problem.

The view that the subject matter of epistemology is the concept of knowledge is faced with the problem that all attempts so far to define that concept are subject to counterexamples. As an alternative, this article argues that the subject matter of epistemology is knowledge itself rather than the concept of knowledge. Moreover, knowledge is not merely a state of mind but rather a certain kind of response to the environment that is essential for survival. In this perspective, the article outlines an answer to four basic questions about knowledge: What is the role of knowledge in human life? What is the relation between knowledge and reality? How is knowledge acquired? Is there any a priori knowledge?

The limitations of mathematical logic either as a tool for the foundations of mathematics, or as a branch of mathematics, or as a tool for artificial intelligence, raise the need for a rethinking of logic. In particular, they raise the need for a reconsideration of the many doors the Founding Fathers of mathematical logic have closed historically. This paper examines three such doors, the view that logic should be a logic of discovery, the view that logic arises from method, and the view that logic is not the whole of reason, and on this basis proposes an alternative approach to logic.

This volume is a collection of papers on philosophy of mathematics which deal with a series of questions quite different from those which occupied the minds of the proponents of the three classic schools: logicism, formalism, and intuitionism. The questions of the volume are not to do with justification in the traditional sense, but with a variety of other topics. Some are concerned with discovery and the growth of mathematics. How does the semantics of mathematics change as the subject develops? What heuristics are involved in mathematical discovery, and do such heuristics constitute a logic of mathematical discovery? What new problems have been introduced by the development of mathematics since the 1930s? Other questions are concerned with the applications of mathematics both to physics and to the new field of computer science. Then there is the new question of whether the axiomatic method is really so essential to mathematics as is often supposed, and the question, which goes back to Wittgenstein, of the sense in which mathematical proofs are compelling. Taking these questions together they give part of an emerging agenda which is likely to carry philosophy of mathematics forward into the twenty first century.

Three decades ago Laudan posed the challenge: Why should the logic of discovery be revived? This paper tries to answer this question arguing that the logic of discovery should be revived, on the one hand, because, by Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, mathematical logic fails to be the logic of justification, and only reviving the logic of discovery logic may continue to have an important role. On the other hand, scientists use heuristic tools in their work, and it may be useful to study such tools systematically in order to improve current heuristic tools or to develop new ones. As a step towards reviving the logic of discovery, the paper follows Aristotle in asserting that logic must be a tool for the method of science, and outlines an approach to the logic of discovery based on the analytic method and on ampliative inference rules.

Can philosophy still be fruitful, and what kind of philosophy can be such? In particular, what kind of philosophy can be legitimized in the face of sciences? The aim of this paper is to answer these questions, listing the characteristics philosophy should have to be fruitful and legitimized in the face of sciences. Since the characteristics in question demand that philosophy search for new knowledge and new rules of discovery, a philosophy with such characteristics may be called the ‘heuristic view’. According to the heuristic view, philosophy is an inquiry into the world which is continuous with the sciences. It differs from them only because it deals with questions which are beyond the present sciences, and in order to deal with them must try unexplored routes. By so doing, when successful, it may even give birth to new sciences. In listing the characteristics that philosophy should have, the paper systematically compares them with classical analytic philosophy, because the latter has been the dominant philosophical tradition in the last century