The current consensus among most researchers is that natural number is not built solely upon a foundation of mental magnitudes. On their way to the conclusion that magnitudes do not form any part of that foundation, Rips et al. pass rather quickly by theories suggesting that mental magnitudes might play some role. These theories deserve a closer look.

Neurosciences and cognitive sciences provide us with myriad empirical findings that shed light on hypothesised primitive numerical processes in the brain and in the mind. Yet, the hypotheses on which the experiments are based, and hence the results, depend strongly on sophisticated abstract models used to describe and explain neural data or cognitive representations that supposedly are the empirical roots of primary arithmetical activity. I will question the foundational role of such models. I will even cast doubt upon the search (...) for a general and unified philosophical foundation of an empirical science. First, it seems to me hard to draw a global and coherent view from the innumerable and piecemeal neuropsychological experiments and their variable, and sometimes uneasily compatible or fully divergent interpretations. Secondly, I think that the aim of empirical research is to describe dynamical processes, establishing correlations between different sets of data, without meaning to fix an origin or to point to a cause, let alone to a ground. From the very scientific and philosophical point of view it is essential to distinguish between explanations, which provide correlations or, at best, causal mechanisms, and grounding, which involves a claim to some form of determinism. (shrink)

There is at present a lively debate in cognitive psychology concerning the origin of natural number concepts. At the center of this debate is the system of mental magnitudes, an innately given cognitive mechanism that represents cardinality and that performs a variety of arithmetical operations. Most participants in the debate argue that this system cannot be the sole source of natural number concepts, because they take it to represent cardinality approximately while natural number concepts are precise. In this paper, I (...) argue that the claim that mental magnitudes represent cardinality approximately overlooks the distinction between a magnitude and the increments that compose to form that magnitude. While magnitudes do indeed represent cardinality approximately, they are composed of a precise number of increments. I argue further that learning the number words and the counting routine may allow one to mark in memory the number of increments that composed to form a magnitude, thereby creating a precise representation of cardinality. (shrink)