Vladimir Drekalović

In 2020, Daniele Molinini published a paper outlining two types of mathematical objectivity. One could say that with this paper Molinini not only separated two mathematical concepts in terms of terminology and content, but also contrasted two mathematical-philosophical contexts, the traditional-idealistic and the modern-practical. Since the first context was the theoretical basis for a large number of analyses that we find in the framework of the philosophy of mathematics, the space was now offered to re-examine such analyses in the second context. More specifically, with respect to the second context, we will analyse the strength of one of the few explicit Platonic arguments that seeks to justify the ontological status of mathematical objects and the central claim of mathematical Platonism about the existence of mathematical objects.

Ever since its beginnings, mathematics has occupied a special position among all sciences, natural, as well as social sciences and humanities. It has not only provided a role model in terms of methodology, particularly when it comes to natural sciences, but other sciences have always relied on mathematics extensively both in their development and for solving various open questions. The beginning of the 21st century foregrounded the issue of the so-called explanatory role of mathematics in science. However, the reference literature features only a few examples as illustration of this role. This paper aims at showing that those examples, even though they are used for illustrating precisely the same purpose, also illustrate various explanatory scopes which mathematical tools can reach within a scientific explanation. Some of these examples also show how mathematics, unfortunately, provides false credibility to scientific explanations.

Alan Baker argues that mathematical objects play an indispensable explanatory role in science. There are several examples cited in the literature as solid candidates for such a role. We discuss two such examples and show that they are very different in their strength and (im)perfection, although both are recognized by the scientific community as examples of the best scientific explanations of particular phenomena. More specifically, it will be shown that the explanation of the cicada case has serious shortcomings compared with the explanation of the case of Königsberg’s bridges. We will argue that the latter is a perfectly reliable scientific explanation that employs mathematical reasoning whereas the former is not.

The contemporary Platonists in the philosophy of mathematics argue that mathematical objects exist. One of the arguments by which they support this standpoint is the so-called Enhanced Indispensability Argument (EIA). This paper aims at pointing out the difficulties inherent to the EIA. The first is contained in the vague formulation of the Argument, which is the reason why not even an approximate scope of the set objects whose existence is stated by the Argument can be established. The second problem is reflected in the vagueness of the very term indispensability, which is essential to the Argument. The paper will remind of a recent definition of the concept of indispensability of a mathematical object, reveal its deficiency and propose an improvement of this definition. Following this, we will deal with one of the consequences of the arbitrary employment of the concept of indispensability of a mathematical theory. We will propose a definition of this concept as well, in accordance with the common intuition about it. Eventually, on the basis of these two definitions, the paper will describe the relation between these two concepts, in the attempt to clarify the conceptual apparatus of the EIA.

This paper analyses two definitions of contingency. Both definitions have been widely accepted and used as to identify contingent events. One of them is primarily of a philosophical character, whereas the other is more commonly used in mathematics. Evidently, these two definitions do not describe the same set of phenomena, and neither of them determines the completely intuitive notion of contingency.Namely, carefully selected examples testify that the first definition is too narrow and the second too wide. These facts have certain epistemological consequences. They must, therefore, serve as a warning for using the definitions only in a restrictive and cautious way when detecting random beliefs – those we cannot identify as knowledge

This discussion note points to some verbal imprecisions in the formulation of the Enhanced Indispensability Argument. The examination of the plausibility of alternative interpretations reveals that the argument’s minor premise should be understood as a particular, not a universal, statement. Interpretations of the major premise and the conclusion oscillate between de re and de dicto readings. The attempt to find an appropriate interpretation for the EIA leads to undesirable results. If assumed to be valid and sound, the argument warrants the rationality of the belief in an unusual variant of Platonism. On the other hand, if taken as it stands, the argument is either invalid or is unsound or does not support the mathematical Platonism. Thus, the EIA in its present form cannot serve as a useful device for the Platonist.

Causal theory of knowledge has been used by some theoreticians who, dealing with the philosophy of mathematics, touched the subject of mathematical knowledge. Some of them discuss the necessity of the causal condition for justification, which creates the grounds for renewing the old conflict between empiricists and rationalists. Emphasizing the condition of causality as necessary for justifiability, causal theory has provided stimulus for the contemporary empiricists to venture on the so far unquestioned cognitive foundations of mathematics. However, in what sense can we speak about the justifiability as causality when it comes to mathematical knowledge? Can we justify the mathematical statement 2+2=4 by means of causality-perceptibility? Do we need perceptibility, a visual image of apples and marbles we add up in our first mathematics lesson, in order to know that statement? Does the same go with the statement that any two points can be joined by a straight line, and that the sum of angles in any triangle is the angle the measure of which equals the sum of the measures of the two right angles? Even though the major part of this article offers a review of the attitudes of various authors who endeavor to discuss the application of the causal theory to the problem of understanding of mathematical knowledge, it advocates the idea that knowledge expressed in a mathematical statement is acquired and transmitted by evidence. Evidence is by itself a guarantee of truth. It convinces us of the accuracy of mathematical truths. Proving, we find out. The greatest part of what we know is based on evidence of the previous knowledge . Due to the previous knowledge, we can say that knowledge in mathematics is in itself different from the knowledge in empirical sciences, i.e. it does not require causal relation that is considered necessary condition of knowing in those sciences.Uzročna teorija znanja iskorištena je od strane nekih teoretičara koji su se, baveći se filozofijom matematike, dotakli teme matematičkog znanja. Neki od njih govore o nužnosti uzročnog uvjeta za opravdanje, čime se stvaraju uvjeti za obnavljanje starog sukoba empirista i racionalista. Uzročna teorija je, isticanjem uvjeta uzročnosti kao nužnog za opravdanost, dala poticaj suvremenim empiristima da krenu čak i na do tada nedodirljive spoznajne temelje matematike. Međutim, u kom smislu možemo govoriti o opravdanosti kao uzročnosti kad je riječ o matematičkom znanju? Da li uzročnošću-čulnošću možemo opravdati matematički iskaz 2+2=4? Je li nam za znanje tog iskaza neophodna čulnost, vizualna predodžba jabuka ili klikera koje zbrajamo na našim prvim satovima matematike u školi? Stoje li stvari isto i s iskazom da se kroz bilo koje dvije točke može povući točno jedan pravac, ili da je zbroj kutova bilo kojeg trokuta kut čija je mjera jednaka zbroju mjera dvaju pravih kutova? Iako je u ovom radu, uglavnom, dan pregled stavova autora koji pokušavaju govoriti o primjeni uzročne teorije u shvaćanju matematičkog znanja, ideja koja se podržava u njemu jest da je znanje, iskazano matematičkim tvrđenjem, dobiveno i preneseno dokazom. Dokaz, sam po sebi, jamac je istine. On nas uvjerava u točnost matematičkih tvrdnji. Dokazujući spoznajemo. Najveći dio onoga što znamo zasnovano je dokazom na prethodnim znanjima . Zbog prethodnog možemo reći da je znanje u matematici po svojoj prirodi drugačije od znanja u empirijskim znanostima, to jest da ne iziskuje uzročnu vezu koja se smatra nužnim uvjetom za znanje u tim znanostima

Platonists in mathematics endeavour to prove the truthfulness of the proposal about the existence of mathematical objects. However, there have not been many explicit proofs of this proposal. One of the explicit ones is doubtlessly Baker’s Enhanced Indispensability Argument, formulated as a sort of modal syllogism. We aim at showing that the purpose of its creation – the defence of Platonist viewpoint – was not accomplished. Namely, the second premise of the Argument was imprecisely formulated, which gave space for various interpretations of the EIA. Moreover, it is not easy to perceive which of the more precise formulations of the above-mentioned premise would be acceptable. For all these reasons, it is disputable whether the EIA can be used to defend Platonist outlook. At the beginning of this century, Baker has shown that the so-called Quine-Putnam Indispensability Argument can not provide “full” platonism - a guarantee of the existence of all mathematical objects. It turns out, however, that the EIA has a similar disadvantage.

The sum of all objects of a science, the objects’ features and their mutual relations compose the reality described by that sense. The reality described by mathematics consists of objects such as sets, functions, algebraic structures, etc. Generally speaking, the use of terms reality and existence, in relation to describing various objects’ characteristics, usually implies an employment of physical and perceptible attributes. This is not the case in mathematics. Its reality and the existence of its objects, leaving aside its application, are completely virtual and yet clearly organized. This organization can be recognized in the creation of axioms or in the arrival at new theorems and definitions. It results either from a formalization of an intuitive idea or from a combinatorics that has not been guided by intuition. In all four possible cases—therefore, also in the two in which there is no intuitive “lead”, we can plausibly talk about a discovery of mathematical facts and thus support the Platonist view