Saturday, 30 January 2016

Meta-arithmetic and philosophy CFP (Swamplandia 2016)

Swamplandia 2016
Meta-arithmetical results and their philosophical meaning
Ghent, May 30 - June 1, 2016

Logicians and mathematicians devoted considerable effort to investigate the properties and limitations of arithmetical theories. Unfortunately, philosophical motivations and implications of some of these results are either not known or not clear. The main aim of the workshop is to present philosophically relevant meta-arithmetical results and discuss their philosophical implications in more depth. The workshop is focused on, but not restricted to formal theories of truth, theories of provability in arithmetic, logic of provability and philosophically relevant results about complexity or computability. Keynote speakers will deliver invited lectures and give extended tutorials. The title of the workshop comes from the fact that philosophical approaches to mathematical results are rather tricky.

Keynote speakers
Diderik Batens (Ghent University)
Cezary Cieśliński (University of Warsaw)
Jeffrey Ketland (University of Oxford)
Lavinia Picollo (Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy)
Saeed Salehi (University of Tabriz)
Peter Verdée (Université Catholique de Louvain)
Albert Visser (Utrecht University)

We welcome submissions of papers that strike a balance between technical developments and philosophical discussion. If you’re interested in presenting at the workshop, please send your extended abstract (1000-1500 words) prepared for double-blind review in PDF format to

by March 1, 2016. Authors of accepted papers will have 30-45 minutes to present their work.

A Studia Logica volume on the philosophical aspects of meta-arithmetical and set-theoretic results will be edited by the organizers. Participants are welcome to submit papers for the volume some time after the conference. Details TBA.

Presentation abstract submission: March 1, 2016
Acceptance notification: April 15, 2016
Fee payment deadline:  May 1, 2016
Workshop: May 30, 2016 - June 1, 2016

Faculty: 60 EUR
Students: 40 EUR
Late fee: 30 EUR + basic fee
If your attendance will not be covered by any grant or if you are a student with financial difficulties, please include a statement saying so at the end of your extended abstract, so we can consider you for a conference fee waiver.

Organizers: Rafal Urbaniak, Pawel Pawlowski and Erik Weber

Wednesday, 27 January 2016

Two doctoral fellowships at the MCMP

You would like to write a PhD thesis at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy (MCMP) on paradoxes of truth and/or vagueness, and on the metaphilosophical question about how to handle diverging solutions to such paradoxes? Great! Then please consider applying for one of the

*** Two Doctoral Fellowships at the MCMP ***

which we are advertising right now (as part of the European Training Network DIAPHORA that includes philosophers from Barcelona, Munich, Neuchatel, Stirling, Stockholm, Edinburgh, Paris).

More information can be found at:

Tuesday, 8 December 2015

Why I don't care what possible worlds are

This afternoon, I lectured to my 2nd year students on Lewis and Stalnaker on possible worlds (with a bit of Kripke thrown in since we'd done the 1st lecture of Naming and Necessity two weeks ago). I included these two papers in the syllabus for the same reason I did last year -- because they are pieces of work of historical importance for their role in the debate on realism w.r.t. possible worlds. And like last year, I found both pieces difficult to lecture on, not because they are especially difficult, or especially problematic, but because, as a modal logician, I simply don't care. Resolving this debate -- whether possible worlds really are "out there" like Lewis thinks or whether they're more of a pragmatic tool as Stalnaker thinks -- will not change my practice one whit.

I try not to let my students know that I feel this way (I try to keep my philosophical "politics" out of the classroom -- except when the opportunity to rant on why I think "not philosophical enough" is a horrible criticism, but that is not apropos here), but I do try to let them know that there is more to the issue than resolving the debate, there is the question of whether the debate needs to be resolved before modal logicians can go about their business with impunity. Last year I put it as an essay question, but I don't remember if anyone took it up. This year, in yesterday's tutorial I divided the group into two and randomly told one "You prepare a case in favor of realism", and the other group "You guys get anti-realism", and during the ensuing discussion, I heard someone sort of whisper to someone else "Does it matter?", which I thought an appropriate to revisit the issue. We discussed it some in the tutorial, with one person feeling quite strongly that if one didn't properly settle the 'foundational' issues, then there would be no guarantee that the modal logician wouldn't one day be led astray. At the end of lecture today I posted two questions hoping to get people's gut feelings -- who thinks Lewis is right, who thinks he's not, and who thinks the question has to be resolved, and who thinks it doesn't. As expected, I got roughly equal hands for each, and was lucky enough to have two people willing to articulate their gut feelings. One (on the side of "yes, we do") argued from the basis of metaphysical possibility: If we're going to use possible worlds for analysing metaphysical possibility, we're sure going to want to know if they are metaphysically possible! The other said that you might need to look at reality to determine which axioms you adopted, but after that, it shouldn't matter what possible worlds in fact are when you start using them as a tool in modal reasoning.

All of this set me up to spend some more time thinking this afternoon about why I don't care. It's a rather scientific, rather than philosophical, position to take -- scientists don't care what the "real nature" of particles are (well, except for the foundationalists, i.e., the physicists), mathematicians don't care what numbers "really" are, modal logicians don't care what possible worlds "really" are, etc. The foundational issue raised in the tutorial yesterday gave rise to an apt comparison with mathematics: Mathematicians don't really care about what numbers are, because whatever they are, they sure work really really well, and by now it seems highly unlikely that we could discover something about what numbers are that would cast the results that we've derived using them into doubt. Modal logic isn't in quite the same position with respect to possible worlds, but it seems similar.

I also thought about what a situation in which it mattered what possible worlds were, metaphysically, would look like -- in what sort of situation would the metaphysical nature of possible worlds make a difference? Well, when discussing metaphysical possibility/necessity, as noted above. I happen to find that concept a highly dubious one (on extra-logical grounds), so I'm happy to simply put up my hands and say "that is not a modal concept I am interested in explicating". But as I tried to come up with concrete scenarios in which modal logic is applied, rather than simply theorized about, in each of these cases, the notion of possible world was interpreted as something quite concrete: For example, states of a computer programme. Then I thought about the other student's comment about needing to hash out what the right axioms were, and that possibly being when it was necessary to know something about the metaphysical status of possible worlds. But what is it that axioms specify? Do they specify anything about the worlds themselves? No: What modal axioms do is specify how the worlds are related to each other, and these axioms will hold (or not) in virtue of the relations between the worlds -- whatever the worlds may be. They may be Lewisian possible worlds, they may be states of a computer, they may be moments in time, they may be pebbles, they may be fruitcakes. The axioms -- that which really is the meat of modal reasoning -- are all about how the worlds are related to each other, and not about how the worlds are composed [1].

And that is at least part of the reason why I, as a modal logician, don't really care about what possible worlds are.

[1] At this point, I realize that everything that I've been saying is about propositional modal logic, and that if what you're interested in is quantified modal logic, then you might object that how the worlds are composed, i.e., what objects are in them and what properties those objects have, is of crucial importance, AND that the axioms adopted will have consequences for the internal composition, e.g., whether the Barcan or Converse Barcan formulas are axioms. To which I would reply: Hmmm, this is very interesting, I will have to think on the case of quantified modal logic further.

© 2015, Sara L. Uckelman

Monday, 2 November 2015

The beauty (?) of mathematical proofs -- empirical predictions

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

This is the final post in my series on beauty, function, and explanation in mathematical proofs (Part I is herePart II is herePart III is herePart IV is herePart V is herePart VI is here; Part VII is here). Here I tease out some empirical predictions of the account developed in the previous posts, according to which beauty and explanatoriness will largely (though not entirely) coincide in mathematical proofs. I also comment on how the account, based on a dialogical conception of mathematical proofs, could be made more palatable for those who would prefer a non-relative, absolute analysis of beauty and explanatoriness.


To summarize, the present account defends the thesis that when mathematicians employ aesthetic vocabulary to describe proofs, both positively (‘beautiful’, ‘elegant’) and negatively (‘ugly’, ‘clumsy’), they are by and large (though not exclusively) tracking the epistemic property of explanatoriness (or lack thereof) of a proof. Up to this point, the account is compatible with both subjective (agent-relative) and objective understandings of beauty and explanation, so long as the two dimensions go together (i.e. both understood as either subjective or as objective). However, on the basis of a dialogical conception of mathematical proofs, I’ve also argued that both explanation and beauty are essentially relative notions with respect to proofs: an explanation is not explanatory an sich, but rather explanatory for its intended audience; and if a proof is deemed beautiful to the extent that it fulfills this explanatory function, then beauty too emerges as a relative notion.

I’ve also suggested ways in which the present account can be made more palatable for those who strongly prefer objective accounts of explanatoriness and beauty. By maximally expanding the range of Skeptics who will deem a proof explanatory – and so aiming towards the notion of a universal audience – in the limit (idealized) case a proof may be deemed explanatory by all (i.e. those who have the required expertise to understand it in the first place). On this conception then, a proof may also be understood to be beautiful in an absolute sense, i.e. insofar it fulfills its explanatory function towards any potential (suitably qualified) audience. The conception of beauty as fit defended by Raman-Sundström (2012), which relies on an objectively conceived notion of fit,[1] may be viewed as an example of such an account, and indeed her description of fit bears a number of similarities with concepts typically associated with explanatoriness.[2]

Monday, 26 October 2015

Podcast: Was medieval logic "formal"?

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

Another instance of some shameless self-promotion... Here is a podcast with an interview with me by the ever-wonderful Peter Adamson -- the host of the fabulous podcast series History of Philosophy without any Gaps -- on Latin medieval logic, more specifically the senses in which medieval logic can (or cannot) be said to be formal -- both according to contemporary notions of formality and medieval ones. Hope some of you will enjoy it!

Saturday, 17 October 2015

Talk: Lessons from the Language(s) of Fiction

Back in January, I posted some reflections on what fictional languages can tell us about what meaning can and cannot be, here and here. Those thoughts eventually became a paper jointly written with one of my students, Phoebe Chan, which is forthcoming in Res Philosophica next April, "Against Truth-Conditional Theories of Meaning: Three Lessons from the Language(s) of Fiction".

For those who are interested in these topics, I gave a talk based on this paper at the Durham Arts & Humanities Society last Thursday evening. The talk was recorded, and is available to listen to on Soundcloud, for a few months at least.

© Sara L. Uckelman, 2015.

Wednesday, 14 October 2015

The beauty (?) of mathematical proofs -- Functional and non-functional beauty

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

This is the seventh installment  of my series of posts on the beauty, function, and explanation in mathematical proofs (Part I is herePart II is herePart III is herePart IV is herePart V is here; Part VI is here). I now turn to beauty properly speaking, and discuss ways in which mathematical proofs are beautiful both in a functional and in a non-functional way.


Prima facie, the concept of functional beauty is strikingly simple: a thing is beautiful insofar as it performs its function(s) well. It seems clear that, generally speaking, for something to fulfill its function is a good thing: normally, it will be useful and advantageous (e.g. it typically enhances fitness for organisms). So it is not surprising that function and beauty should become closely associated. As detailed in (Parsons & Carlson 2009), to date the most comprehensive study of this concept, functional beauty has a venerable pedigree, dating back to classical Greek philosophy (Aristotle in particular, which is not surprising given his interest in function and teleology), and having been particularly popular in the 18th century. As famously noted by Hume:

This observation extends to tables, chairs, scritoires, chimneys, coaches, saddles, ploughs, and indeed to every work of art; it being a universal rule, that their beauty is chiefly deriv’d from their utility, and from their fitness for that purpose, to which they are destin’d. (Hume 1960, 364)

But of course, much complexity lies behind the concept of function itself, which is what is doing all the work. What determines the function(s) of an object, artifact or organism? The concept of function occupies a prominent role in biology, in fact since Aristotle but with renewed strength since the advent of evolutionary biology. (Indeed, Parsons and Carlson (2009) rely extensively on work on function within philosophy of biology, e.g. Godfrey-Smith’s work.) Here however we should focus on artifacts, given that the goal is to increase our understanding of the (putative) beauty of mathematical proofs, which, despite a potentially problematic ontological status (more on which shortly), come closer to artifacts than to organisms or natural objects such as e.g. planets or rocks. Parsons and Carlson (2009, 75) offer the following definition of the (proper) function of an artifact:

An artifact has proper function if and only if it currently exists because, in recent past, its ancestors were successful in meeting some need or want in the marketplace because they performed that function, leading to the manufacture and distribution of that artifact.

Monday, 12 October 2015

The beauty (?) of mathematical proofs -- A proof is and is not a dialogue

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

This is the sixth installment (two more to come!) of my series of posts on the beauty, function, and explanation in mathematical proofs (Part I is herePart II is herePart III is here;Part IV is here; Part V is here). After having introduced the dialogical conception of proofs in the previous post, in this post I explain why proofs do not appear to be dialogues, and what the prospects are for an absolute notion of the explanatoriness of proofs.


At this point, the reader may be wondering: this is all very well, but obviously deductive proofs are not really dialogues! They are typically presented in writing rather than produced orally (though of course they can also be presented orally, for example in the context of teaching), and if at all, there is only one ‘voice’ we hear, that of Prover. So at best, they must be viewed as monologues. My answer to this objection is that Skeptic may have been ‘silenced’, but he is still alive and well insofar as the deductive method has internalized the role of Skeptic by making it constitutive of the deductive method as such. Recall that the job of Skeptic is to look for counterexamples and to make sure the argumentation is perspicuous. This in turn corresponds to the requirement that each inferential step in a proof must be necessarily truth preserving (and so immune to counterexamples), and that a proof must have the right level of granularity, i.e. it must be sufficiently detailed for the intended audience, in order to achieve its explanatory purpose.

Let us discuss in more detail the phenomenon of different levels of granularity in mathematical proofs, as it is directly related to the issue of explanatoriness. It is well known that the level of detail with which the different steps in a proof are spelled out will vary according to the context: for example, in professional journals, proofs are more often than not no more than proof sketches, where the key ideas are presented. The presupposition is that the intended audience, namely professional mathematicians working on similar topics, would be able to reconstruct the details of the proof should they feel the need to do so (e.g. if they somehow doubt the results). In contrast, in the context of textbooks or in classroom situations, proofs tend to be presented in much more detail, precisely because the intended audience is not expected to have the level of expertise required to reconstruct the proof from a proof-sketch. What is more, the intended audience is in the process of learning the game of formulating and understanding mathematical proofs, and so proofs where each step is clearly spelled out is what is required. Furthermore, different areas within mathematics tend to have different standards of rigor for proofs, again in function of the intended audience.

What the phenomenon of different levels of granularity suggests when it comes to the explanatoriness of proofs is that, for a proof to be explanatory for its intended audience, the right level of granularity must be adopted.[1] If a proof is to be explanatory in the sense of making “something that is initially puzzling less puzzling; an explanation reduces mystery” (Colyvan 2012, 76), the decrease of puzzlement is at least in first instance inherently tied to the agent to whom something should become less puzzling.

Friday, 9 October 2015

The beauty (?) of mathematical proofs -- explanatory persuasion as the function of proofs

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

This is the fifth installment of my series of posts on the beauty, function, and explanation in mathematical proofs (Part I is herePart II is herePart III is here; Part IV is here). In this post I bring in my dialogical conception of proofs (did you really think you'd be spared of it this time, dear reader?) to spell out what I take to be one of the main functions of mathematical proofs: to produce explanatory persuasion.


Framing the issue in these terms allows for the formulation of two different approaches to the matter: explanatoriness as an objective, absolute property of the proofs themselves; or as a property that is variously attributed to proofs first and foremost based on pragmatic reasons, which means that such judgments may by and large be context-dependent and agent-dependent. (A third approach may be described as ‘nihilist’: explanation is simply not a useful concept when it comes to understanding the mathematical notion of proof.) Some of those instantiating the first approach are Steiner (1978) and Colyvan (2010); some of those instantiating the second one are Heinzmann (2006) and Paseau (2011). (It is important to bear in mind that the discussion here pertains to so-called ‘informal’ deductive proofs (such as proofs presented in mathematical journals or textbooks), not to proofs within specific formal systems.)

For reasons which will soon become apparent, the present analysis sides resolutely with so-called pragmatic approaches: the notion of explanation is in fact useful to explain the practices of mathematicians with respect to proofs, in particular the phenomenon of proof predilection, but it should not be conceived as an absolute, objective, human-independent property of proofs. One important prediction of this approach is that mathematicians will not converge in their judgments on the explanatoriness of a proof, given that these judgments will depend on contexts and agents (more on this in the final section of the paper).

Perhaps the conceptual core of pragmatic approaches to the explanatoriness of a mathematical proof is the idea that explanation is a triadic concept, involving the producer of the explanation, the explanation itself (the proof), and the receiver of the explanation. The idea is that explanation is always addressed at a potential audience; one explains something to someone else (or to oneself, in the limit).[1] And so, a functional perspective is called for: what is the function (or what are the functions) of a proof? What is it good for? Why do mathematicians bother producing proofs at all? While these questions are typically left aside by mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics, they have been raised and addressed by authors such as Hersh (1993), Rav (1999), and Dawson (2006).

One promising vantage point to address these questions is the historical development of deductive proof in ancient Greek mathematics,[2] and on this topic the most authoritative study remains (Netz 1999). Netz[3] emphasizes the importance of orality and dialogue for the emergence of classical, ‘Euclidean’ mathematics in ancient Greece:

Thursday, 8 October 2015

The beauty (?) of mathematical proofs -- explanatory proofs

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

This is the fourth installment of my series of posts on the beauty, function, and explanation in mathematical proofs (Part I is herePart II is here; Part III is here). In this post I present a brief survey of the debates in the literature on what it means for a mathematical proof to be explanatory.


Quite a bit has been said on explanation and mathematical proofs in recent decades (Mancosu & Pincock 2012). Although the topic itself has an old and distinguished pedigree (it was extensively discussed by ancient authors such as Aristotle and Proclus, as well as by Renaissance and early modern authors – Mancosu 2011, section 5), in recent decades the debate was (re-)ignited by the work of Steiner in the late 19070s, thus generating a wealth of discussions. This brief overview could not possibly do justice to the richness of this material, so what follows is a selection of themes particularly pertinent for the present purposes.

The issue of what makes scientific theories or arguments more generally explanatory is again a question as old as philosophy itself; indeed, it is of the main issues discussed in Aristotle’s theory of science (in particular in the Posterior Analytics). The traditional, Aristotelian account has it that a scientific explanation is truly explanatory iff it accurately tracks the causal relations underlying the phenomena that it seeks to explain. To mention a worn-out but still useful example: the fact that it is 25 degrees C outside and the fact that a well-functioning thermometer indicates ’25 C’ (typically) occur simultaneously, but an explanation of the former phenomenon in terms of the latter gets the causal order the wrong way round: it is the outside temperature of 25 degrees C that causes thermometers to indicate ’25 C’, not the converse.

In the 20th century, the issue regained prominence, at first with Hempel’s (1965) formulation of his famous Deductive-Nomological model of scientific explanation. In the spirit of the logical positivistic rejection of all things metaphysical, Hempel’s goal was to offer an account of scientific explanation that would do away with traditional but dubious (i.e. metaphysical) concepts such as causation. Much criticism has been voiced against Hempel’s model on different grounds, and one line of attack, espoused in particular by Salmon (1984), emphasized the unsuitability of doing away with causation altogether.

When it comes to mathematics, the question them becomes: are mathematical proofs explanatory in the same way as scientific theories are? It is in no way obvious that a causal story can be told for mathematical proofs. Does it make sense to say that some mathematical truths can cause some other mathematical truths? For this to be the case, one would presumably have to accept not only the independent existence of mathematical entities, but also the idea that they can causally influence each other. Now, while this is not as such an incoherent position (and seems to be something that a full-blown Platonist such as Hardy might be happy to endorse), it comes with heavy metaphysical as well as epistemological (as per Benacerraff’s challenge) costs.

Wednesday, 7 October 2015

The beauty (?) of mathematical proofs -- beauty and explanatoriness

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

This is the third installment of my series of posts on the beauty, function, and explanation in mathematical proofs (Part I is here; Part II is here). In this post I start drawing connections (later to be discussed in more detail) between beauty and explanatoriness.


A hypothesis to be investigated in more detail in what follows is that there seems to be an intimate connection between attributions of beauty to mathematical proofs and the idea that mathematical proofs should be explanatory. Indeed, the reductive account of Rota in terms of enlightenment immediately brings to mind the ideal of explanatoriness:

We acknowledge a theorem's beauty when we see how the theorem "fits" in its place, how it sheds light around itself, like a Lichtung, a clearing in the woods. We say that a proof is beautiful when such a proof finally gives away the secret of the theorem, when it leads us to perceive the actual, not the logical inevitability of the statement that is being proved. (Rota 1997, 182).

It is not surprising that there should be such a connection for non-literal, reductive accounts such as Rota’s; explanatoriness is a very plausible candidate as the epistemic property that is actually being tracked by these apparently aesthetic judgments. However, the connection is arguably present both in reductive and in non-reductive accounts. Indeed, it is striking to notice that many of the properties that Hardy (1940) attributes to beautiful proofs are in fact properties typically associated with explanatoriness in the literature (to be discussed in an upcoming post). According to Hardy, a beautiful mathematical proof is:

  • ·      Serious: connected to other mathematical ideas
  • ·      General: idea used in proofs of different kinds
  • ·      Deep: pertaining to deeper ‘strata’ of mathematical ideas
  • ·      Unexpected: argument takes a surprising form
  • ·      Inevitable: there is no escape from the conclusion
  • ·      Economical (simple): no complications of detail, one line of attack

Tuesday, 6 October 2015

The beauty (?) of mathematical proofs - methodological considerations

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

This is the second installment in my series of posts on the beauty, function, and explanatoriness of mathematical proofs (Part I is here). I here discuss methodological issues on how to adjudicate the 'dispute' between the reductive and the literal accounts of the beauty of proofs, discussed in Part I.


But what could possibly count as evidence to adjudicate the ‘dispute’ between the literal/non-reductive camp and the non-literal/reductive camp? We are now confronted with a rather serious methodological challenge, namely that of determining what counts as ‘data’ on this issue (and potentially other issues in the philosophy of mathematics). Both sides seem to have compelling arguments, but it is not clear that a top-down approach with conceptual, philosophical argumentation alone will be sufficient.[1] However, it seems that merely anecdotal evidence (“I am a mathematician and I use aesthetic terminology in a literal (or non-literal) sense”) will not suffice either. Firstly, there are of course limits to self-reflective knowledge. Secondly, what is to rule out that some mathematicians use aesthetic terminology as proxy for epistemic properties, while others use the terminology in a literal sense instead? It is not clear that a uniform account is what we are looking for.[2] Moreover, it may be a case of an is-ought gap: perhaps mathematicians do use aesthetic vocabulary in a particular way (either literal or non-literal), but should they use this vocabulary in this way and not in another way?

Ultimately, the question is: what is the explanandum in a philosophical account of the (presumed) aesthetic dimension of mathematical proofs? Are we (merely) offering an account of the aesthetic judgments of mathematicians? (Something that might be conceived as belonging to the sociology rather than the philosophy of mathematics.)[3] Or are we dealing with a crucial component of mathematical practice, one that fundamentally influences how mathematicians go about? Or perhaps the goal is to explain (purported) human-independent properties of proofs such as beauty and ugliness? What will count as data in this investigation will depend on what the theorist thinks is being investigated in the first place.[4]

Monday, 5 October 2015

The beauty (?) of mathematical proofs - reductive vs. literal approaches

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

I am currently working on a paper provisionally entitled 'Beauty, function, and explanation in mathematical proofs', and so this week I will post what I have so far as a series of blog posts. Here I start with a discussion on the current literature on the presumed beauty of some mathematical proofs. As always, comments very welcome!


It is well known that mathematicians often employ aesthetic adjectives to describe mathematical entities, mathematical proofs in particular. Poincaré famously claimed that mathematical beauty is “a real aesthetic feeling that all true mathematicians recognize.” In a similar vein, Hardy remarked that “there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics.” Indeed, in A Mathematician’s Apology Hardy offers a detailed discussion of what makes a mathematical proof beautiful in his view. More recently, corpus analysis of the laudatory texts on the occasion of mathematical prizes shows that they are filled with aesthetic terminology (Holden & Piene 2009, 2013). But it is not all about beauty; certain kinds of proofs that still encounter resistance among mathematicians, such as computer-assisted proofs or probabilistic proofs, are sometimes described as  ‘ugly’ (Montaño 2012). Indeed, mathematicians seem to often use aesthetic vocabulary to indicate their preferences for some proofs over others.
What exactly is going on? Even if we keep in mind that, in colloquial language, it is quite common to use aesthetic terminology in a rather loose sense (‘he has a beautiful mind’; ‘things got quite ugly at that point’), the robustness of uses of this terminology among mathematicians seems to call for a philosophical explanation. What are these judgments tracking? Are these judgments really tracking aesthetic properties of mathematical proofs? Or are these aesthetic terms being used as proxy for some other, non-aesthetic property or properties? Is it really the case that “all true mathematicians” recognize mathematical beauty when they see it? Do they indeed converge in their attributions of beauty (or ugliness) to mathematical proofs? And even assuming that there is a truly aesthetic dimension in these judgments, is beauty a property of the proofs themselves, or is it rather something ‘in the eyes of the beholder’? These and other issues are some of the explanatory challenges for the philosopher of mathematics seeking to understand why mathematicians systematically employ aesthetic terminology to talk about mathematical proofs (as well as other mathematical objects and entities).

Monday, 28 September 2015

Easy as 1, 2, 3 ? -- Wittgenstein on counting

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes
(Cross-posted at NewAPPS)

“A B C
It's easy as, 1 2 3
As simple as, do re mi
A B C, 1 2 3
Baby, you and me girl”

45 years ago, Michael Jackson and his troupe of brothers famously claimed that counting is easy peasy. But how easy is it really? (We’ll leave aside the matter of the simplicity of A B C and do re mi for present purposes!)

Counting and basic arithmetic operations are often viewed as paradigmatic cases of ‘easy’ mental operations. It might seem that we are all ‘born’ with the innate ability for basic arithmetic, given that we all seem to engage in the practice of counting effortlessly. However, as anyone who has cared for very young children knows, teaching a child how to count is typically a process requiring relentless training. The child may well know how to recite the order of numbers (‘one, two, three…’), but from that to associating each of them to specific quantities is a big step. Even when they start getting the hang of it, they typically do well with small quantities (say, up to 3), but things get mixed up when it comes to counting more items. For example, they need to resist the urge to point at the same item more than once in the counting process, something that is in no way straightforward!

The later Wittgenstein was acutely aware of how much training is involved in mastering the practice of counting and basic arithmetic operations. (Recall that he was a schoolteacher for many years in the 1920s!) Indeed, counting and adding objects can be described as a specific and rather peculiar language game which must be learned by training, and which raises all kinds of philosophical questions pertaining to what it is exactly that we are doing when we count things. Perhaps my favorite passage in the whole of the Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics is #37 in part I:

Monday, 7 September 2015

Cambridge Companion to Medieval Logic - Table of Contents

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes

(This post can be safely classified as an instance of shameless self-promotion, but here we go anyway...) Last week Stephen Read and I delivered the full manuscript of the forthcoming Cambridge Companion to Medieval Logic to Cambridge University Press. We still need to go through the whole production process (including indexing), but at this point it is safe to assume the volume will appear somewhere in 2016. We've been working on this volume for nearly 3 years, and so we are suitably thrilled to be nearing completion!

Many people asked me about the Table of Contents for the volume, and so I figured I might as well make it public -- now that we know there will not be any changes to chapters and/or contributors. Here it is:

0   Introduction – Catarina Dutilh Novaes and Stephen Read      

PART I: Periods and traditions

1   The Legacy of Ancient Logic in the Middle Ages – Julie Brumberg-Chaumont         
2   Arabic Logic up to Avicenna – Ahmad Hasnawi and Wilfrid Hodges  
3   Arabic Logic after Avicenna – Khaled El-Rouayheb      
4   Latin Logic up to 1200 – Ian Wilks          
5   Logic in the Latin Thirteenth Century – Sara L. Uckelman and Henrik Lagerlund   
6   Logic in the Latin West in the Fourteenth Century – Stephen Read  
7   The Post-Medieval Period – E. Jennifer Ashworth   

PART II: Themes
8   Logica Vetus – Margaret Cameron           
9   Supposition and properties of terms – Christoph Kann          
10 Propositions: Their meaning and truth – Laurent Cesalli        
11 Sophisms and Insolubles – Mikko Yrjönsuuri and Elizabeth Coppock           
12 The Syllogism and its Transformations – Paul Thom    
13 Consequence – Gyula Klima          
14 The Logic of Modality – Riccardo Strobino and Paul Thom      
15 Obligationes – Catarina Dutilh Novaes and Sara L. Uckelman 

Bridges 2 – Workshop at Rutgers

The Rutgers Philosophy Department and the Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science will be hosting a workshop (on Logic, Language, Epistemology, and Philosophy of Science) September 18-20. The workshop will bring together scholars from the NYC area, Amsterdam (the Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation), and Munich (the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy). The schedule for the workshop is posted on the Bridges 2 webpage:

The event is open to the public.

Wednesday, 26 August 2015

Formal Methods in Philosophy: a Brief Introduction (Part II)

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes
(Cross-posted at NewAPPS)

This is the second and final part of my 'brief introduction' to formal methods in philosophy to appear in the forthcoming Bloomsbury Philosophical Methodology Reader, being edited by Joachim Horvath. (Part I is here.) In this part I present in more detail the four papers included in the formal methods section, namely Tarski's 'On the concept of following logically', excerpts from Carnap's Logical Foundations of Probability, Hansson's 2000 'Formalization in philosophy', and a commissioned new piece by Michael Titelbaum focusing in particular (though not exclusively) on Bayesian epistemology. 


Some of the pioneers in formal/mathematical approaches to philosophical questions had a number of interesting things to say on the issue of what counts as an adequate formalization, in particular Tarski and Carnap – hence the inclusion of pieces by each of them in the present volume. Indeed, both in his paper on truth and in his paper on logical consequence (in the 1930s), Tarski started out with an informal notion and then sought to develop an appropriate formal account of it. In the case of truth, the starting point was the correspondence conception of truth, which he claimed dated back to Aristotle. In the case of logical consequence, he was somewhat less precise and referred to the ‘common’ or ‘everyday’ notion of logical consequence.

These two conceptual starting points allowed Tarski to formulate what he described as ‘conditions of material adequacy’ for the formal accounts. He also formulated criteria of formal correctness, which pertain to the internal exactness of the formal theory. In the case of truth, the basic condition of material adequacy was the famous T-schema; in the case of logical consequence, the properties of necessary truth-preservation and of validity-preserving schematic substitution. Unsurprisingly, the formal theories he then went on to develop both passed the test of material adequacy he had formulated himself. But there is nothing particularly ad hoc about this, since the conceptual core of the notions he was after was presumably captured in these conditions, which thus could serve as conceptual ‘guides’ for the formulation of the formal theories.

Friday, 21 August 2015

Formal Methods in Philosophy: a Brief Introduction (Part I)

By Catarina Dutilh Novaes
(Cross-posted in NewAPPS)

There is a Bloomsbury Philosophical Methodology Reader in the making, being edited by Joachim Horvath (Cologne). Joachim asked me to edit the section on formal methods, which will contain four papers: Tarski's 'On the concept of following logically', excerpts from Carnap's Logical Foundations of Probability, Hansson's 2000 'Formalization in philosophy', and a commissioned new piece by Michael Titelbaum focusing in particular (though not exclusively) on Bayesian epistemology. It will also contain a brief introduction to the topic by me, which I will post in two installments. Here is part I: comments welcome!


Since the inception of (Western) philosophy in ancient Greece, methods of regimentation and formalization, broadly understood, have been important items in the philosopher’s toolkit (Hodges 2009). The development of syllogistic logic by Aristotle and its extensive use in centuries of philosophical tradition as a formal tool for the analysis of arguments may be viewed as the first systematic application of formal methods to philosophical questions. In medieval times, philosophers and logicians relied extensively on logical tools other than syllogistic (which remained pervasive though) in their philosophical analyses (e.g. medieval theories of supposition, which come quite close to what is now known as formal semantics). But the level of sophistication and pervasiveness of formal tools in philosophy has increased significantly since the second half of the 19th century. (Frege is probably the first name that comes to mind in this context.)

It is commonly held that reliance on formal methods is one of the hallmarks of analytic philosophy, in contrast with other philosophical traditions. Indeed, the birth of analytic philosophy at the turn of the 20th century was marked in particular by Russell’s methodological decision to treat philosophical questions with the then-novel formal, logical tools developed for axiomatizations of mathematics (by Frege, Peano, Dedekind etc. – see (Awodey & Reck 2002) for an overview of these developments), for example in his influential ‘On denoting’ (1905). (Notice though that, from the start, there is an equally influential strand within analytic philosophy focusing on common sense and conceptual analysis, represented by Moore – see (Dutilh Novaes & Geerdink forthcoming).) This tradition was then continued by, among others, the philosophers of the Vienna Circle, who conceived of philosophical inquiry as closely related to the natural and exact sciences in terms of methods. Tarski, Carnap, Quine, Barcan Marcus, Kripke, and Putnam are some of those who have applied formal techniques to philosophical questions. Recently, there has been renewed interest in the use of formal, mathematical tools to treat philosophical questions, in particular with the use of probabilistic, Bayesian methods (e.g. formal epistemology). (See (Papineau 2012) for an overview of the main formal frameworks used for philosophical inquiry.)

Tuesday, 18 August 2015

Book review: John P. Burgess' Rigor and Structure (OUP)

Rigor and Structure, Burgess tells us in the preface, was originally intended to provide for mathematical structuralism the sort of survey that A Subject with No Object (Burgess & Rosen, 1999) provided for nominalism. However, the book that Burgess has ended up writing is importantly different from his earlier work with Rosen. In large part, this is because, for Burgess, not only is mathematical structuralism true --- whereas he took nominalism to be false --- but moreover it is a ''trivial truism'', at least as a description of modern mathematics from the beginning of the twentieth century onwards (Burgess, 2015, 111). Thus, instead of providing philosophical arguments in favour of mathematical structuralism, Burgess instead devotes the first half of the book (Chapters 1 and 2) to providing an historical account of how mathematics developed into the modern discipline of which mathematical structuralism is so obviously a true description. And this is where the other component of the title enters the story. For it is Burgess' contention that modern structuralist mathematics --- which he explores in the second half of the book, that is, in Chapters 3 and 4 --- is an inevitable consequence of the long quest for rigor, which began, so far as we know, with Euclid's Elements, and was completed by work in the nineteenth and early twentieth century that led to the arithmetization of analysis, the axiomatization or arithmetic, analysis, and geometry, the formulation of non-Euclidean geometries, and the founding of modern algebraic theories, such as group theory.

Thus, in the first two chapters of Rigor and Structure, Burgess asks two questions: What is mathematical rigor? Why did mathematicians strive so hard to achieve it throughout the period just described? To answer the first question, Burgess turns initially to the pronouncements of mathematicians themselves, but he finds little that is precise enough to satisfy a philosopher there. So he turns next to Aristotle and, looking to the Posterior Analytics, extracts the following suggestion:

Mathematical rigor requires that:
  • ''every new proposition must be deduced from previously established propositions'';
  •  ''every new notion must be defined in terms of previously explained notions'';
  • there are primitive notions from which the chain of definitions begins;
  • there are primitive postulates from which the chain of deductions begins;
  • ''the meaning of the primitives and the truth of the postulates must be evident''.
(Burgess, 2015, 6-7)