UCL Discovery
UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

Indispensability Arguments and Mathematical Explanation in Science

Salverda, JM; (2013) Indispensability Arguments and Mathematical Explanation in Science. Masters thesis , UCL (University College London). Green open access

[thumbnail of MPhil Stud Thesis Josephine Salverda.pdf]
Preview
PDF
MPhil Stud Thesis Josephine Salverda.pdf
Available under License : See the attached licence file.

Download (399kB)

Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to find a way to undermine the indispensability argument for mathematical platonism. In chapter 1 I provide a brief survey of the indispensability argument, arguing that the explanatory indispensability argument is stronger than earlier forms of the argument. This is because it has less controversial premises, appealing neither to confirmational holism nor to a strong naturalism but rather to inference to the best explanation, a principle of inference which both sides in the indispensability debate are taken to accept. Hence I take the explanatory indispensability argument as my target. In chapter 2, I provide a more detailed account of the way in which inference to the best explanation, or IBE, is involved in the explanatory indispensability argument. I present two readings of the argument, rejecting the first reading and arguing that a second reading, which involves an instance of IBE, is the most plausible. Chapter 3 considers whether there are genuine cases of mathematical explanation in science, focusing on an explanation from evolutionary biology provided by Alan Baker. I draw on the biological literature to argue that there is some reason to doubt that Baker's explanation meets the conditions for a successful application of IBE. In chapter 4 I examine a number of restrictions on IBE recently suggested in the indispensability debate. Firstly, I argue that the indexing account suggests a reasonable restriction on IBE, but that proponents of the indexing account have not yet shown that this restriction is successful in undermining the explanatory indispensability argument. Secondly, I examine a restriction on IBE proposed by Pincock, arguing that this restriction is also unsuccessful in blocking the support of mathematical claims through IBE. Thirdly, I propose a restriction on IBE motivated by scientific practice and which, I argue, successfully undermines the explanatory indispensability argument.

Type: Thesis (Masters)
Title: Indispensability Arguments and Mathematical Explanation in Science
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
Language: English
UCL classification: UCL
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Arts and Humanities
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Arts and Humanities > European and Intl Social and Political Studs
URI: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1390630
Downloads since deposit
574Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item