5 ms·

No mention of Frege here, and only a cursory quote from Russell. While I can't comment on the author's perspective based on this article alone, it is consistent

No mention of Frege here, and only a cursory quote from Russell. While I can't comment on the author's perspective based on this article alone, it is consistently shocking to me how little scientists and mathematicians are interested in in reading and engaging with philosophy related to their fields.

theoh 10y ago
Downvotes for you, apparently! Shut up and calculate, as they say in QM...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Smaug123 10y ago
I, for one, would be happy to read mathematical philosophy. The problem is that there is so much of it, and lots of it contradicts lots of other bits of it. As a mathematician attempting to find out about the philosophy of mathematics, I want a source of truth and correctness. In order to find it (assuming it even exists), I also have to wade through reams of falsity. The additional problem is that philosophy, like any field, has a steep learning curve. It takes a lot of effort to go from "I want to learn about the philosophy of my field" to "I know a little bit about the philosophy of my field".
- black_knight 10y ago
  There is no consensus as to what is the true and correct philosophy of mathematics. People are going to disagree about that, just like they disagree about almost every other part of philosophy. But there are books which give you a survey of different views, such as Shapiro’s “Thinking about mathematics” — which surely will bring you to “I know a bit about the philosophy of mathematics”-level. During my time as a master student in mathematics we used to have a joint seminar with students from philosophy where we would take turns reading and presenting topics from philosophy of mathematics. I think it was useful for everyone, and it wasn’t difficult to organise and didn’t take much time (2 hours per week during one term).
  - Smaug123 10y ago
    > There is no consensus as to what is the true and correct philosophy of mathematics. This is part of the problem. I start reading; I see something "obviously false" which is endorsed by lots of people; I see something "obviously true" which is endorsed by lots of people but is contradictory to the obviously-false thing; I see a case which contradicts both of those and isn't obviously true or obviously false; and I give the whole thing up as non-rigorous and/or tedious. But I'll look out Shapiro and see if it helps.

theoh 10y ago

Downvotes for you, apparently! Shut up and calculate, as they say in QM...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Smaug123 10y ago

I, for one, would be happy to read mathematical philosophy. The problem is that there is so much of it, and lots of it contradicts lots of other bits of it. As a mathematician attempting to find out about the philosophy of mathematics, I want a source of truth and correctness. In order to find it (assuming it even exists), I also have to wade through reams of falsity. The additional problem is that philosophy, like any field, has a steep learning curve. It takes a lot of effort to go from "I want to learn about the philosophy of my field" to "I know a little bit about the philosophy of my field".

black_knight 10y ago
There is no consensus as to what is the true and correct philosophy of mathematics. People are going to disagree about that, just like they disagree about almost every other part of philosophy. But there are books which give you a survey of different views, such as Shapiro’s “Thinking about mathematics” — which surely will bring you to “I know a bit about the philosophy of mathematics”-level. During my time as a master student in mathematics we used to have a joint seminar with students from philosophy where we would take turns reading and presenting topics from philosophy of mathematics. I think it was useful for everyone, and it wasn’t difficult to organise and didn’t take much time (2 hours per week during one term).
- Smaug123 10y ago
  > There is no consensus as to what is the true and correct philosophy of mathematics. This is part of the problem. I start reading; I see something "obviously false" which is endorsed by lots of people; I see something "obviously true" which is endorsed by lots of people but is contradictory to the obviously-false thing; I see a case which contradicts both of those and isn't obviously true or obviously false; and I give the whole thing up as non-rigorous and/or tedious. But I'll look out Shapiro and see if it helps.