赫尔曼·科恩的无限小方法原理:辩护

Scott Edgar
{"title":"赫尔曼·科恩的无限小方法原理:辩护","authors":"Scott Edgar","doi":"10.1086/710180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Bertrand Russell’s 1903 The Principles of Mathematics, he offers an apparently devastating criticism of The Principle of the Infinitesimal Method and Its History (PIM) by the neo-Kantian Hermann Cohen. Russell’s criticism is motivated by a concern that Cohen’s account of the foundations of calculus saddles mathematics with the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum and thus threatens the idea of mathematical truth. This article defends Cohen against Russell’s objection and argues that, properly understood, Cohen’s views of limits and infinitesimals do not entail the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum. Essential to that defense is an interpretation, developed in the article, of Cohen’s positions in the PIM as deeply rationalist. The interest in developing this interpretation is not just that it reveals how Cohen’s views in the PIM avoid the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum. It also reveals elements of what is at stake, both historically and philosophically, in Russell’s criticism of Cohen.","PeriodicalId":42878,"journal":{"name":"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science","volume":"74 1","pages":"440 - 470"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hermann Cohen’s Principle of the Infinitesimal Method: A Defense\",\"authors\":\"Scott Edgar\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/710180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Bertrand Russell’s 1903 The Principles of Mathematics, he offers an apparently devastating criticism of The Principle of the Infinitesimal Method and Its History (PIM) by the neo-Kantian Hermann Cohen. Russell’s criticism is motivated by a concern that Cohen’s account of the foundations of calculus saddles mathematics with the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum and thus threatens the idea of mathematical truth. This article defends Cohen against Russell’s objection and argues that, properly understood, Cohen’s views of limits and infinitesimals do not entail the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum. Essential to that defense is an interpretation, developed in the article, of Cohen’s positions in the PIM as deeply rationalist. The interest in developing this interpretation is not just that it reveals how Cohen’s views in the PIM avoid the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum. It also reveals elements of what is at stake, both historically and philosophically, in Russell’s criticism of Cohen.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42878,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"74 1\",\"pages\":\"440 - 470\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"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/10.1086/710180\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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/10.1086/710180","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: 1

摘要

在伯特兰·罗素1903年的《数学原理》一书中,他对新康德主义者赫尔曼·科恩的《无穷小方法原理及其历史》(PIM)提出了明显的毁灭性批评。罗素的批评是出于一种担忧,即科恩对微积分基础的描述使数学背负着无限小和连续体的悖论,从而威胁到数学真理的观念。本文为科恩辩护,反对罗素的反对意见,并认为,正确理解,科恩的极限和无穷小的观点并不包含无穷小和连续体的悖论。这一辩护的关键是对科恩在PIM中的立场的深刻理性主义的解释,这在文章中得到了发展。发展这种解释的兴趣不仅在于它揭示了科恩在PIM中的观点是如何避免无限小和连续体的悖论的。它还揭示了罗素对科恩的批评在历史上和哲学上的关键因素。
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
Hermann Cohen’s Principle of the Infinitesimal Method: A Defense
In Bertrand Russell’s 1903 The Principles of Mathematics, he offers an apparently devastating criticism of The Principle of the Infinitesimal Method and Its History (PIM) by the neo-Kantian Hermann Cohen. Russell’s criticism is motivated by a concern that Cohen’s account of the foundations of calculus saddles mathematics with the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum and thus threatens the idea of mathematical truth. This article defends Cohen against Russell’s objection and argues that, properly understood, Cohen’s views of limits and infinitesimals do not entail the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum. Essential to that defense is an interpretation, developed in the article, of Cohen’s positions in the PIM as deeply rationalist. The interest in developing this interpretation is not just that it reveals how Cohen’s views in the PIM avoid the paradoxes of the infinitesimal and continuum. It also reveals elements of what is at stake, both historically and philosophically, in Russell’s criticism of Cohen.
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