This paper argues that in at least some cases, one proof of a given theorem is deeper than another by virtue of supplying a deeper explanation of the theorem — that is, a deeper account of why the theorem holds. There are cases of scientific depth that also involve a common abstract structure explaining a similarity between two otherwise unrelated phenomena, making their similarity no coincidence and purchasing depth by answering why questions that separate, dissimilar explanations of the two phenomena (...) cannot correctly answer. The connections between explanation, depth, unification, power, and coincidence in mathematics and science are compared. (shrink)

With reference to an already existing and relatively widespread use of the expression in question, mathematical “thought experiments” (“TEs”) involve mathematical reasoning in which visualisation plays a relatively more important role. But to ensure an unambiguous and consistent use of the term, certain conditions have to be met: (1) Contrary to what has happened so far in the literature, the distinction between logical-formal thinking and experimental-operational thinking must not be ignored; (2) The separation between the context of discovery and the (...) context of justification is to be rejected, at least in one of the main senses in which it was defended by the logical empiricists and Popper (this excludes any position which, ascribing to mathematical TEs only a heuristic role, regards them an intermediate step to attain more traditional forms of rigour); (3) The distinction between mathematical TEs and formal proofs must be regarded as one of degree, and not as a qualitative one, although this distinction may be used in a de facto way for particular or local purposes. (shrink)