诚实的黄鼠狼:成功的黄鼠狼指南

IF 0.1 Q3 Arts and Humanities Disputatio (Spain) Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI:10.2478/disp-2020-0002
Patrick Dieveney
{"title":"诚实的黄鼠狼:成功的黄鼠狼指南","authors":"Patrick Dieveney","doi":"10.2478/disp-2020-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Indispensability arguments are among the strongest arguments in support of mathematical realism. Given the controversial nature of their conclusions, it is not surprising that critics have supplied a number of rejoinders to these arguments. In this paper, I focus on one such rejoinder, Melia’s ‘Weasel Response’. The weasel is someone who accepts that scientific theories imply that there are mathematical objects, but then proceeds to ‘take back’ this commitment. While weaseling seems improper, accounts supplied in the literature have failed to explain why. Drawing on examples of weaseling in more mundane contexts, I develop an account of the presumption against weaseling as grounded in a misalignment between two types of commitments. This is good news to the weasel’s opponents. It reinforces that they were right to question the legitimacy of weaseling. This account is also beneficial to the weasel. Uncovering the source of the presumption against weaseling also serves to draw out the challenge that the weasel must meet to override this presumption—what is required to be an ‘honest weasel’.","PeriodicalId":52369,"journal":{"name":"Disputatio (Spain)","volume":"20 1","pages":"41 - 69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Honest Weasel A Guide for Successful Weaseling\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Dieveney\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/disp-2020-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Indispensability arguments are among the strongest arguments in support of mathematical realism. Given the controversial nature of their conclusions, it is not surprising that critics have supplied a number of rejoinders to these arguments. In this paper, I focus on one such rejoinder, Melia’s ‘Weasel Response’. The weasel is someone who accepts that scientific theories imply that there are mathematical objects, but then proceeds to ‘take back’ this commitment. While weaseling seems improper, accounts supplied in the literature have failed to explain why. Drawing on examples of weaseling in more mundane contexts, I develop an account of the presumption against weaseling as grounded in a misalignment between two types of commitments. This is good news to the weasel’s opponents. It reinforces that they were right to question the legitimacy of weaseling. This account is also beneficial to the weasel. Uncovering the source of the presumption against weaseling also serves to draw out the challenge that the weasel must meet to override this presumption—what is required to be an ‘honest weasel’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52369,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Disputatio (Spain)\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"41 - 69\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Disputatio (Spain)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/disp-2020-0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disputatio (Spain)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/disp-2020-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

不可或缺性论证是支持数学实在论的最有力的论证之一。鉴于他们的结论具有争议性,批评家们对这些论点提出了许多反驳也就不足为奇了。在本文中,我将重点讨论一个这样的反驳,即梅利亚的“黄鼠狼回应”。黄鼠狼是指接受科学理论暗示存在数学对象,但随后又“收回”这一承诺的人。虽然逃避似乎不合适,但文献中提供的描述未能解释其中的原因。通过在更平凡的环境中使用鼬鼠行为的例子,我提出了一种反对鼬鼠行为的假设,这种假设是基于两种类型的行为之间的不一致。这对黄鼠狼的对手来说是个好消息。这进一步证明,他们质疑“黄鼠狼”的合法性是正确的。这种说法对黄鼠狼也是有利的。揭示反对黄鼠狼的假设的来源也有助于引出黄鼠狼必须面对的挑战,以推翻这一假设——成为“诚实的黄鼠狼”所需要的条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Honest Weasel A Guide for Successful Weaseling
Abstract Indispensability arguments are among the strongest arguments in support of mathematical realism. Given the controversial nature of their conclusions, it is not surprising that critics have supplied a number of rejoinders to these arguments. In this paper, I focus on one such rejoinder, Melia’s ‘Weasel Response’. The weasel is someone who accepts that scientific theories imply that there are mathematical objects, but then proceeds to ‘take back’ this commitment. While weaseling seems improper, accounts supplied in the literature have failed to explain why. Drawing on examples of weaseling in more mundane contexts, I develop an account of the presumption against weaseling as grounded in a misalignment between two types of commitments. This is good news to the weasel’s opponents. It reinforces that they were right to question the legitimacy of weaseling. This account is also beneficial to the weasel. Uncovering the source of the presumption against weaseling also serves to draw out the challenge that the weasel must meet to override this presumption—what is required to be an ‘honest weasel’.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Disputatio (Spain)
Disputatio (Spain) Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
35 weeks
期刊最新文献
Indexicals in Fiction Comparatives in Context Introduction: Varieties of Context-Sensitivity in a Pluri-Propositionalist Reflexive Semantic Framework First-Person Plural Indexicals Formalizing English Contextuals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1