Hume’s Principle, Bad Company, and the Axiom of Choice

Review of Symbolic Logic 16 (4):1158-1176 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

One prominent criticism of the abstractionist program is the so-called Bad Company objection. The complaint is that abstraction principles cannot in general be a legitimate way to introduce mathematical theories, since some of them are inconsistent. The most notorious example, of course, is Frege’s Basic Law V. A common response to the objection suggests that an abstraction principle can be used to legitimately introduce a mathematical theory precisely when it is stable: when it can be made true on all sufficiently large domains. In this paper, we raise a worry for this response to the Bad Company objection. We argue, perhaps surprisingly, that it requires very strong assumptions about the range of the second-order quantifiers; assumptions that the abstractionist should reject.

Author Profiles

Sam Roberts
Universität Konstanz
Stewart Shapiro
Ohio State University

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-10-26

Downloads
487 (#34,503)

6 months
211 (#12,630)

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?