Social constructivism in mathematics? The promise and shortcomings of Julian Cole’s institutional account

Author:

Rytilä JenniORCID

Abstract

AbstractThe core idea of social constructivism in mathematics is that mathematical entities are social constructs that exist in virtue of social practices, similar to more familiar social entities like institutions and money. Julian C. Cole has presented an institutional version of social constructivism about mathematics based on John Searle’s theory of the construction of the social reality. In this paper, I consider what merits social constructivism has and examine how well Cole’s institutional account meets the challenge of accounting for the characteristic features of mathematics, especially objectivity and applicability. I propose that in general social constructivism shows promise as an ontology of mathematics, because the view can agree with mathematical practice and it offers a way of understanding how mathematical entities can be real without conflicting with a scientific picture of reality. However, I argue that Cole’s specific theory does not provide an adequate social constructivist account of mathematics. His institutional account fails to sufficiently explain the objectivity and applicability of mathematics, because the explanations are weakened and limited by the three-level theoretical model underlying Cole’s account of the construction of mathematical reality and by the use of the Searlean institutional framework. The shortcomings of Cole’s theory give reason to suspect that the Searlean framework is not an optimal way to defend the view that mathematical reality is socially constructed.

Funder

Emil Aaltosen Säätiö

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Social Sciences,Philosophy

Reference24 articles.

1. Balaguer, M. (1995). A platonist epistemology. Synthese, 103(3), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01089731

2. Bridges, D., & Palmgren, E. (2018). Constructive mathematics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/mathematics-constructive/

3. Bueno, O. (2020). Nominalism in the philosophy of mathematics. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/nominalism-mathematics/

4. Carter, J. (2004). Ontology and mathematical practice. Philosophia Mathematica, 12(3), 244–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/philmat/12.3.244

5. Cole, J. C. (2008). Mathematical domains: Social constructs? In B. Gold & R. Simons (Eds.), Proof and other dilemmas: Mathematics and philosophy (pp. 109–128). Mathematics Association of America.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3