Quine, Putnam, and the `Quine-Putnam' indispensability argument

DOI10.1007/s10670-007-9081-yzbMath1138.03305OpenAlexW2102129650WikidataQ56225285 ScholiaQ56225285MaRDI QIDQ2475624

David Liggins

Publication date: 11 March 2008

Published in: Erkenntnis (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-007-9081-y

zbMATH Keywords

philosophy of mathematicsexistence of abstract mathematical objects

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Philosophy of mathematics (00A30) Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations (03A05)

Related Items (3)

Can the new indispensability argument be saved from Euclidean rescues? ⋮ Why inference to the best explanation doesn't secure empirical grounds for mathematical Platonism ⋮ On the Indispensable Premises of the Indispensability Argument

Cites Work

• What's wrong with indispensability? (Or, the case for recreational mathematics)
• Steps toward a constructive nominalism
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item

This page was built for publication: Quine, Putnam, and the `Quine-Putnam' indispensability argument