Carlo Cellucci

From antiquity several philosophers have claimed that the goal of natural science is truth. In particular, this is a basic tenet of contemporary scientific realism. However, all concepts of truth that have been put forward are inadequate to modern science because they do not provide a criterion of truth. This means that we will generally be unable to recognize a scientific truth when we reach it. As an alternative, this paper argues that the goal of natural science is plausibility and considers some characters of plausibility.

This book offers an alternative to the present prevailing approach to philosophy. For, there have never been so many professional philosophers as there are today, yet philosophy has never been so irrelevant. This is because according to today’s dominant philosophy, namely analytic philosophy, philosophy does not advance knowledge, but only aims to understand what we already know. As a result, philosophy deals with artifactual puzzles of no abiding significance. This contrasts with the fact that, at some stages of its historical development, philosophy has played a significant role in the advancement of knowledge. To overcome the present impasse of philosophy, this book proposes a view of philosophy as acquisition of knowledge, according to which philosophy can open new ways to knowledge and lead to the birth of new sciences.

The current dominant view about logic is that there is a single paradigm of logic, logic as justification. According to it, logic is a means of justification and consists in a theory of deduction; the paradigm originated with Aristotle’s logic and its current form is mathematical logic; the latter includes Aristotle’s logic as a small fragment, it was created to justify mathematics by putting it on a firm foundation, and is adequate as a logic of justification. This paper, however, argues that this view is not valid. Aristotle’s logic does not belong to the paradigm of logic as justification, and mathematical logic is inadequate as a means of justification. In addition to the paradigm of logic as justification, there is the paradigm of logic as discovery. According to it, logic is a method of discovery and consists of the analytic method. The latter is adequate as a method of discovery, and hence also as a means of justification, because in the analytic method justification is part of discovery.

After giving arguments against the claim that the so-called Big Data revolution has made theory building obsolete, the paper discusses the shortcomings of two views according to which there is no rational approach to theory building: the hypothetico-deductive view and the semantic view of theories. As an alternative, the paper proposes the analytic view of theories, illustrating it with some examples of theory building by Kepler, Newton, Darwin, and Bohr. Finally, the paper examines some aspects of the view of theory building as problem solving.

The nature of the scientific method has been a main concern of philosophy from Plato to Mill. In that period logic has been considered to be a part of the methodology of science. Since Mill, however, the situation has completely changed. Logic has ceased to be a part of the methodology of science, and no Discourse on method has been written. Both logic and the methodology of science have stopped dealing with the process of discovery, and generally with the actual process of scientific research. As a result, several first-rate scientists, from Feynman and Weinberg to Dyson and Hawkins, have concluded that philosophy has become useless and totally irrelevant to science. The aim of this paper is to give some indications as to how to develop a logic concerned with the process of discovery and a methodology of science dealing with the actual process of scientific research.

Mathematics has long been a preferential subject of reflection for philosophers, inspiring them since antiquity in developing their theories of knowledge and their metaphysical doctrines. Given the close connection between philosophy and mathematics, it is hardly surprising that some major philosophers, such as Descartes, Leibniz, Pascal and Lambert, have also been major mathematicians. In the history of philosophy the reflection on mathematics has taken several forms. Since it is impossible to deal with all of them in a single volume, in this book I will present what seems to me the most satisfactory form today. My own view, however, differs considerably from the dominant view, and on a number of accounts.

A traditional question in the philosophy of mathematics is to give an answer to the question: What is the nature of mathematical objects? This chapter considers the main answers that have been given to this question, specifically those according to which mathematical objects are independently existing entities, or abstractions, or logical objects, or simplifications, or mental constructions, or structures, or fictions, or idealizations of sensible things, or idealizations of operations. The chapter also shows the shortcomings of these answers, and considers an alternative answer, according to which mathematical objects are hypotheses introduced to solve mathematical problems by the analytic method.

This monograph addresses the question of the increasing irrelevance of philosophy, which has seen scientists as well as philosophers concluding that philosophy is dead and has dissolved into the sciences. It seeks to answer the question of whether or not philosophy can still be fruitful and what kind of philosophy can be such. The author argues that from its very beginning philosophy has focused on knowledge and methods for acquiring knowledge. This view, however, has generally been abandoned in the last century with the belief that, unlike the sciences, philosophy makes no observations or experiments and requires only thought. Thus, in order for philosophy to once again be relevant, it needs to return to its roots and focus on knowledge as well as methods for acquiring knowledge. Accordingly, this book deals with several questions about knowledge that are essential to this view of philosophy, including mathematical knowledge. Coverage examines such issues as the nature of knowledge; plausibility and common sense; knowledge as problem solving; modeling scientific knowledge; mathematical objects, definitions, diagrams; mathematics and reality; and more. This monograph presents a new approach to philosophy, epistemology, and the philosophy of mathematics. It will appeal to graduate students and researchers with interests in the role of knowledge, the analytic method, models of science, and mathematics and reality.

This volume examines the limitations of mathematical logic and proposes a new approach to logic intended to overcome them. To this end, the book compares mathematical logic with earlier views of logic, both in the ancient and in the modern age, including those of Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes, Leibniz, and Kant. From the comparison it is apparent that a basic limitation of mathematical logic is that it narrows down the scope of logic confining it to the study of deduction, without providing tools for discovering anything new. As a result, mathematical logic has had little impact on scientific practice. Therefore, this volume proposes a view of logic according to which logic is intended, first of all, to provide rules of discovery, that is, non-deductive rules for finding hypotheses to solve problems. This is essential if logic is to play any relevant role in mathematics, science and even philosophy. To comply with this view of logic, this volume formulates several rules of discovery, such as induction, analogy, generalization, specialization, metaphor, metonymy, definition, and diagrams. A logic based on such rules is basically a logic of discovery, and involves a new view of the relation of logic to evolution, language, reason, method and knowledge, particularly mathematical knowledge. It also involves a new view of the relation of philosophy to knowledge. This book puts forward such new views, trying to open again many doors that the founding fathers of mathematical logic had closed historically.

The question of whether mathematics depends on experience, including experience of the external world, is problematic because, while it is clear that natural sciences depend on experience, it is not clear that mathematics depends on experience. Indeed, several mathematicians and philosophers think that mathematics does not depend on experience, and this is also the view of mainstream philosophy of mathematics. However, this view has had a deleterious effect on the philosophy of mathematics. This article argues that, in fact, the view is not valid. Mathematics depends on experience because experience influences the making of mathematics, indeed much mathematics arises from experience and is evaluated on the basis of experience.

Mainstream philosophy of mathematics, namely the philosophy of mathematics that has prevailed for the past century, claims that the philosophy of mathematics cannot concern itself with the making of mathematics, in particular discovery, but only with finished mathematics, namely mathematics presented in finished form. On this basis, mainstream philosophy of mathematics argues that mathematics is theorem proving by the axiomatic method. This, however, is untenable because it is incompatible with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, and cannot account for many features of mathematics. This book offers an alternative approach, heuristic philosophy of mathematics, according to which the philosophy of mathematics can concern itself with the making of mathematics, in particular discovery. On this basis, the book argues that mathematics is problem solving by the analytic method, and that this can account for all the main features of mathematics: mathematical method, objects, demonstrations, definitions, diagrams, notations, explanations, beauty, applicability, and knowledge.

Reuben Hersh is a champion of maverick philosophy of mathematics. He maintains that mathematics is a human activity, intelligible only in a social context; it is the subject where statements are capable in principle of being proved or disproved, and where proof or disproof bring unanimous agreement by all qualified experts; mathematicians' proof is deduction from established mathematics; mathematical objects exist only in the shared consciousness of human beings. In this paper I describe my several points of agreement and few points of disagreement with Hersh's views.

ellucci, C., Existential instantiation and normalization in sequent natural deduction, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 58 111–148. A sequent conclusion natural deduction system is introduced in which classical logic is treated per se, not as a special case of intuitionistic logic. The system includes an existential instantiation rule and involves restrictions on the discharge rules. Contrary to the standard formula conclusion natural deduction systems for classical logic, its normal derivations satisfy both the subformula property and the separation property and allow to establish a version of the midsequent theorem and Herbrand's theorem.

The nature of the scientific method has been a main concern of philosophy from Plato to Mill. In that period logic has been considered to be a part of the methodology of science. Since Mill, however, the situation has completely changed. Logic has ceased to be a part of the methodology of science, and no Discourse on method has been written. Both logic and the methodology of science have stopped dealing with the process of discovery, and generally with the actual process of scientific research. As a result, several first-rate scientists, from Feynman and Weinberg to Dyson and Hawkins, have concluded that philosophy has become useless and totally irrelevant to science. The aim of this paper is to give some indications as to how to develop a logic concerned with the process of discovery and a methodology of science dealing with the actual process of scientific research.

The terms of a mathematical problem become precise and concise if they are expressed in an appropriate notation, therefore notations are useful to mathematics. But are notations only useful, or also essential? According to prevailing view, they are not essential. Contrary to this view, this paper argues that notations are essential to mathematics, because they may play a crucial role in mathematical discovery. Specifically, since notations may consist of symbolic notations, diagrammatic notations, or a mix of symbolic and diagrammatic notations, notations may play a crucial role in mathematical discovery in different ways. Some examples are given to illustrate these ways.

In the last few decades there has been a revival of interest in diagrams in mathematics. But the revival, at least at its origin, has been motivated by adherence to the view that the method of mathematics is the axiomatic method, and specifically by the attempt to fit diagrams into the axiomatic method, translating particular diagrams into statements and inference rules of a formal system. This approach does not deal with diagrams qua diagrams, and is incapable of accounting for the role diagrams play as means of discovery and understanding. Alternatively, this paper purports to show that the view that the method of mathematics is the analytic method is capable of dealing with diagrams qua diagrams, and of accounting for such role.