Anti-nominalism reconsidered

Philosophical Quarterly 57 (226):104–111 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Many philosophers of mathematics are attracted by nominalism – the doctrine that there are no sets, numbers, functions, or other mathematical objects. John Burgess and Gideon Rosen have put forward an intriguing argument against nominalism, based on the thought that philosophy cannot overrule internal mathematical and scientific standards of acceptability. I argue that Burgess and Rosen’s argument fails because it relies on a mistaken view of what the standards of mathematics require.

Author's Profile

David Liggins
University of Manchester

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
826 (#14,669)

6 months
116 (#25,819)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?