Skip Navigation


The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science Advance Access originally published online on June 7, 2007
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2007 58(3):423-450; doi:10.1093/bjps/axm016
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
58/3/423    most recent
axm016v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roland, J. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for the Philosophy of Science.

Maddy and Mathematics: Naturalism or Not

Jeffrey W. Roland

Louisiana State University, Department of Philosophy, Baton Rouge LA 70803-3901, USA

jroland{at}lsu.edu


  Abstract

Penelope Maddy advances a purportedly naturalistic account of mathematical methodology which might be taken to answer the question `What justifies axioms of set theory?' I argue that her account fails both to adequately answer this question and to be naturalistic. Further, the way in which it fails to answer the question deprives it of an analog to one of the chief attractions of naturalism. Naturalism is attractive to naturalists and nonnaturalists alike because it explains the reliability of scientific practice. Maddy's account, on the other hand, appears to be unable to similarly explain the reliability of mathematical practice without violating one of its central tenets.

1 Introduction
2 Mathematical Naturalism
3 Desiderata and the attraction of naturalism
4 Assessment: Naturalism and names
4.1 Taking ‘naturalism’ seriously
4.2 Second philosophy (or what's in a name)

5 A way out?
6 Or out of the way?


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.