M. Buzzoni
{"title":"A Neglected Chapter in the History of Philosophy of Mathematical Thought Experiments: Insights from Jean Piaget’s Reception of Edmond Goblot","authors":"M. Buzzoni","doi":"10.1086/712938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the beginning of the twentieth century, prominent authors including Jean Piaget have drawn attention to Edmond Goblot’s account of mathematical thought experiments. But his contribution to today’s debate has been neglected so far. The main goal of this article is to reconstruct and discuss Goblot’s account of logical operations (the term he used for thought experiments in mathematics) and its interpretation by Piaget against the theoretical background of two open questions in today’s debate: (1) the relationship between empirical and mathematical thought experiments and (2) the question of whether mathematical thought experiments can play a justificatory function in proofs. The main corollary of this analysis is that Piaget’s interpretation is seriously flawed and insufficiently appreciative of important theses of Goblot’s account. First, Goblot can be easily defended against Piaget’s main criticism, and second, Goblot developed ideas about mathematical thought experiments that still deserve attention.","PeriodicalId":42878,"journal":{"name":"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science","volume":"31 1","pages":"282 - 304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/712938","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

自20世纪初以来,包括让·皮亚杰在内的著名作家都注意到了埃德蒙·戈洛特对数学思维实验的描述。但到目前为止,他对今天这场辩论的贡献一直被忽视。本文的主要目的是在今天辩论的两个开放问题的理论背景下,重构和讨论戈洛特对逻辑运算(他用于数学思维实验的术语)的描述以及皮亚杰对其的解释:(1)经验思维实验和数学思维实验之间的关系;(2)数学思维实验是否能在证明中发挥证明功能的问题。这种分析的主要推论是,皮亚杰的解释存在严重缺陷,并且没有充分理解戈洛特的重要论点。首先,戈布洛可以很容易地反驳皮亚杰的主要批评,其次,戈布洛提出的关于数学思维实验的想法仍然值得关注。
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
A Neglected Chapter in the History of Philosophy of Mathematical Thought Experiments: Insights from Jean Piaget’s Reception of Edmond Goblot
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, prominent authors including Jean Piaget have drawn attention to Edmond Goblot’s account of mathematical thought experiments. But his contribution to today’s debate has been neglected so far. The main goal of this article is to reconstruct and discuss Goblot’s account of logical operations (the term he used for thought experiments in mathematics) and its interpretation by Piaget against the theoretical background of two open questions in today’s debate: (1) the relationship between empirical and mathematical thought experiments and (2) the question of whether mathematical thought experiments can play a justificatory function in proofs. The main corollary of this analysis is that Piaget’s interpretation is seriously flawed and insufficiently appreciative of important theses of Goblot’s account. First, Goblot can be easily defended against Piaget’s main criticism, and second, Goblot developed ideas about mathematical thought experiments that still deserve attention.
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Conceptual Analysis and the Analytic Method in Kant’s Prize Essay Johann Nikolaus Tetens (1736-1807) and the Idea of Phoneme. A Chapter in the History of Linguistic Thought What Conceptual Engineering Can Learn From The History of Philosophy of Science: Healthy Externalism and Metasemantic Plasticity Sellars, Analyticity, and a Dynamic Picture of Language Special Section Introduction
×
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