Gabriel Târziu

What is the role of mathematics in scientific explanations? Does it/can it play an explanatory part? This question is at the core of the recent ontological debate in the philosophy of mathematics. My aim in this paper is to argue that the two main approaches to this problem found in recent literature (i.e. the top-down and the bottom-up approaches) are both deeply problematic. This has an important implication for the dispute over the existence of mathematical entities: to make progress possible in this debate, we either have to find a different approach to the problem of the role of mathematics in scientific explanations (one that is not affected by the problems that, as I argue in this paper, plague the existing approaches), or we need to recast it in different terms.

A lot of philosophical energy has been devoted recently in trying to determine if mathematics can contribute to our understanding of physical phenomena. Not many philosophers are interested, though, if the converse makes sense, i.e., if our cognitive interaction (scientific or otherwise) with the physical world can be helpful (in an explanatory or non-explanatory way) in our efforts to make sense of mathematical facts. My aim in this paper is to try to fill this important lacuna in the recent literature. My answer to the question of this paper is negative. As I will argue, there are serious problems with the main reasons for believing in the first place that it is possible to have physical understanding of mathematical facts.

What exactly do we need in order to enjoy the cognitive benefit that is supposed to be provided by an explanation? Some philosophers :15–37, 2012, Episteme 10:1–17, 2013, Eur J Philos Sci 5:377–385, 2015, Understanding, explanation, and scientific knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017) would say that all that we need is to know the explanation. Others :1–26, 2012; Strevens in Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 44:510–515, 2013) would say that achieving understanding with the help of an explanation requires more than that, that it requires a grasping or an understanding of the explanation. My aim in this paper is to come up with a new answer to this problem by exploring the shortcomings of the received view of understanding. In my view, besides having testimonial knowledge of an explanation, obtaining explanatory understanding requires full cognitive access to the explanation.

Optimality models are widely used in different parts of biology. Two important questions that have been asked about such models are: are they explanatory and, if so, what type of explanations do they offer? My concern in this paper is with the approach of Rice (2012, 2015) and Irvine (2015), who claim that these models provide non-causal explanations. I argue that there are serious problems with this approach and with the accounts of explanation it is intended to justify. The idea behind this undertaking is to draw attention to an important issue associated with the recent pluralist stance on explanation: the rampant proliferation of theories of explanation. This proliferation supports a pluralist perspective on explanation, and pluralism encourages such a proliferation. But, if we are not careful about how we arrive at and how we justify new accounts of explanation — i.e., if we do not try to avoid the sort of problems discussed in this paper — we may end up trivializing the concept of explanation.

In aceasta lucrare, autorul si-a propus sa readuca in discutie problema aplicabilitatii matematicii - atat de importanta pentru Kant, dar care a ajuns sa fie in mare parte neglijata in filosofia contemporana a matematicii - incercand sa argumenteze, plecand de la ea, pentru o viziune empirista in filosofia matematicii. Strategia pe care autorul isi propune sa o urmeze, in linii mari, consta intr-o incercare de a atrage atentia asupra unei probleme care apare atunci cand avem in vedere utilitatea matematicii in fizica (De ce este posibil ca matematica sa-l serveasca atat de bine pe fizician? Daca matematica are un subiect propriu de studiu si metode proprii de studiere a acestuia si evolueaza conform propriei sale dinamici interne, cum de poate juca un rol atat de important, dupa unii indispensabil, pentru stiinta?) - problema care este diferita de provocarea lui Wigner si a lui Steiner si de problema coordonarii care apare la pozitivistii logici - urmata de un argument pentru ideea ca singura cale de a raspunde la aceasta problema ar fi aceea de a adopta o doctrina empirista in filosofia matematicii.

O tendinţă relativ nouă în filosofia contemporană a matematicii este reprezentată de nemulţumirea manifestată de un număr din ce în ce mai mare de filosofi faţă de viziunea tradiţională asupra matematicii ca având un statut special ce poate fi surprins doar cu ajutorul unei epistemologii speciale. Această nemulţumire i-a determinat pe mulţi să propună o nouă perspectivă asupra matematicii – una care ia în serios aspecte până acum neglijate de filosofia matematicii, precum latura sociologică, istorică şi empirică a cercetării matematice şi care acordă astfel o atenţie deosebită practicii matematice.

A new trend in the philosophical literature on scientific explanation is that of starting from a case that has been somehow identified as an explanation and then proceed to bringing to light its characteristic features and to constructing an account for the type of explanation it exemplifies. A type of this approach to thinking about explanation – the piecemeal approach, as I will call it – is used, among others, by Lange (2013) and Pincock (2015) in the context of their treatment of the problem of mathematical explanations of physical phenomena. This problem is of central importance in two different recent philosophical disputes: the dispute about the existence on non-causal scientific explanations and the dispute between realists and antirealists in the philosophy of mathematics. My aim in this paper is twofold. I will first argue that Lange (2013) and Pincock (2015) fail to make a significant contribution to these disputes. They fail to contribute to the dispute in the philosophy of mathematics because, in this context, their approach can be seen as question begging. They also fail to contribute to the dispute in the general philosophy of science because, as I will argue, there are important problems with the cases discussed by Lange and Pincock. I will then argue that the source of the problems with these two papers has to do with the fact that the piecemeal approach used to account for mathematical explanation is problematic.

Can mathematics contribute to our understanding of physical phenomena? One way to try to answer this question is by getting involved in the recent philosophical dispute about the existence of mathematical explanations of physical phenomena. If there is such a thing, given the relation between explanation and understanding, we can say that there is an affirmative answer to our question. But what if we do not agree that mathematics can play an explanatory role in science? Can we still consider that the above question can have an affirmative answer? My main aim here is to give an account that takes mathematics, in some of the cases discussed in the literature, as contributing to our understanding of physical phenomena despite not being explanatory.

Scientific practice is a type of social practice, and every enterprise of knowledge in general exhibits important social dimensions. But should the fact that scientific practice is born out of and tied to the collaborative efforts of the members of a social group be taken to affect the products of these practices as well? In this paper, I will try in to give an affirmative answer to this question. My strategy will be to argue that the aim of science is partially determined by a socio-historical context and that this aim, together with the available background knowledge, stands behind a methodology that is responsible for empirically and aim-adequate theoretical results.

A way to argue that something plays an explanatory role in science is by linking explanatory relevance with importance in the context of an explanation. The idea is deceptively simple: a part of an explanation is an explanatorily relevant part of that explanation if removing it affects the explanation either by destroying it or by diminishing its explanatory power, i.e. an important part is an explanatorily relevant part. This can be very useful in many ontological debates. My aim in this paper is twofold. First of all, I will try to assess how this view on explanatory relevance can affect the recent ontological debate in the philosophy of mathematics—as I will argue, contrary to how it may appear at first glance, it does not help very much the mathematical realists. Second of all, I will show that there are big problems with it.