MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4366809877 · doi:10.1353/rss.2014.0014

Uncovering the Mathematics Behind Russell’s Philosophy of Mathematics

2014· article· en· W4366809877 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Graham Stevens

Notice bibliographique

RevueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiquePhilosophy, Science, and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPhilosophy of mathematicsSubject (documents)ClassicsPhilosophyEpistemologyMathematicsComputer scienceHistoryLibrary science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

c:\users\kenneth\documents\type3401\rj 3401 193 red.docx 2014-05-14 8:54 PM UNCOVERING THE MATHEMATICS BEHIND RUSSELL’S PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS Graham Stevens Philosophy / U. of Manchester Manchester m13 9pl, uk graham.p.stevens@manchester.ac.uk Sébastien Gandon. Russell’s Unknown Logicism. (History of Analytic Philosophy series.) Basingstoke, uk, and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Pp. xiii + 263. isbn: 978-0-230-57699-5. £55; us$90. n My Philosophical Development, Russell recorded the disappointment that both he and Whitehead felt about the reception of Principia Mathematica by the mathematical community. While the philosophical parts of the book, including those parts dealing with philosophical logic, were of course widely discussed and of tremendous importance in the subsequent development of philosophical logic, the purely mathematical aspects of the work went largely ignored. Russell was perhaps exaggerating when he claimed he used to know of “only six people who had read the later parts of the book” (MPD, p. 86) but it was certainly true that the impact of the book on mathematicians working in areas outside of the philosophical foundations of their subject was minimal . The situation has hardly changed since the publication of those remarks in 1959. Principia Mathematica remains the target of philosophical, not mathematical , attention. In this outstanding new book on Russell’s logicism, however , Sébastien Gandon offers a welcome exception to the rule. While the book is still very much a book on Russell’s philosophy, its central claim is that new light can be shed on that philosophy by examining the hitherto neglected mathematical parts of both Principia Mathematica and The Principles of Mathematics . What parts of Russell’s philosophy are to be better understood in light of these forays into the “terra incognita” (p. 2) of Russell’s treatment of advanced mathematics in Principia and the Principles? Gandon’s insightful suggestion is that the very notion of analysis at the heart of Russell’s logicist project can be grasped in a new and more complete way by reflection on Russell’s development of areas of mathematics such as his theories of geometry and quantity. The suggestion is a compelling one, not least because Gandon does a superb job of arguing the case through his own painstaking analysis of Russell ’s mathematics in the book. To understand why these seemingly remote parts of Russell’s philosophical writings carry such significance, Gandon argues that Russell’s logicist project must be understood both in terms of its contribution to philosophy and to f= Reviews 93 c:\users\kenneth\documents\type3401\rj 3401 193 red.docx 2014-05-14 8:54 PM mathematics. Logicism makes a bold assertion about mathematics—that mathematical truths (or, perhaps, some subset of them—e.g. those that exclude geometry in the case of Frege’s version of logicism) are nothing more than logical truths. As we know, the logicist project does not rest content with bold assertion, it seeks to prove the assertion. The proof will be a demonstration that every mathematical truth can be translated into a logical truth. Frege’s attempt at that demonstration famously failed because it overlooked Russell’s paradox. Russell and Whitehead’s attempted demonstration may have avoided that pitfall, but it had problems of its own (the axioms of reducibility and infinity) that left many unconvinced of its success. Gandon’s project here is not to provide a fresh argument for accepting Russell and Whitehead ’s demonstration, nor even for accepting the truth of logicism. Rather, it is to examine more closely what the claim made by the logicist is and to subsequently draw a subtle but important distinction between the projects of Frege and Russell, as well as the project which Gandon, more tentatively, ascribes to Wittgenstein. To illustrate the differences between the three approaches, Gandon invites us to reflect on what kind of analysis of mathematical reasoning is being proposed by the logicist, and suggests that the three positions mentioned above present themselves as three possible outcomes of that reflection. The logicist is faced with an analysandum—pre-logicized mathematics—to which the analysans must be related in a certain way. One option...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,536
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,909

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,248
Écart entre enseignants0,203 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueRussell the Journal of Bertrand Russell StudiesMême sujetPhilosophy, Science, and HistoryTravaux en français237 207