axiomatics

[Joe Shipman]

I disagree, because Rota went into detail about precise ways in which philosophers had gone astray because of inappropriately formalistic methods inspired by mathematical practice. It wasn’t simply repartee, the analysis went on for several pages across a couple of chapters.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 23, 2020, at 6:53 PM, katzmik at macs.biu.ac.il wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that the comment about philosophers doing damage to philosophy
> is  in the category of a clever repartee to which philosophers are supposed to
> respond "touch\'e", but it doesn't advance us very much beyond the
> mathematicians' natural instinct of circling the wagons.  Wittgenstein's
> criticism of the thrust of 20th century mathematics is well-known, has been
> very influential in philosophy, and has generated much discussion, including
> furious responses by logicians in the middle of the century.  Trusting Rota's
> account  of the debate is like appointing a fox to guard the chicken coop.  MK
> 
>> On Thu, April 23, 2020 18:23, Joe Shipman wrote:
>> The Rota book is very helpful (not just on the page referenced but in many
>> other places), and clarifies that the problem is one of philosophy rather than
>> mathematics. Rota explains that philosophers misapprehend the role of
>> axiomatics and as a result have done damage to philosophy. As for
>> mathematicians, axiomatics is important for presentation, verification,
>> pedagogy, and clarification, but mathematicians themselves are not, or need
>> not be, straitjacketed by axiomatics in a way that hinders discovery, if I am
>> interpreting Rota correctly.
>> 
>> I’m interested in criticisms of axiomatics by mathematicians, and Rota’s book
>> is uniquely helpful because he was eminent in both philosophy and mathematics.
>> 
>> — JS
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Apr 23, 2020, at 2:07 AM, adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
>>> <palmaadriano at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear Dr Shipman you may find the relevant quotes , not the names fo authors,
>>> following, e.g., --108 & ff of Giancarlo Rota.
>>> I include the book as edited by Palombi for Birkhauser.
>>> 
>>> best regards
>>> 
>>> 
>>> may
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Quatsch wird gelöscht, ohne gelesen zu werden
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> הִשְׁתַּדֵּל‎   הִזְדַּקֵּן‎
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> palma,  a paolo shaul םֹשׁ ְרֵגּ‎
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:56 AM Joe Shipman <joeshipman at aol.com> wrote:
>>>> I would appreciate either links or quotes. All people are giving me is
>>>> names.
>>>> 
>>>> — JS
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 23, 2020, at 1:50 AM, adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
>>>>>> <palmaadriano at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Dr Shipman
>>>>> you may find a wealth of remarks critical of axiomatic methods
>>>>> in the works of Giancarlo Rota (MIT.)
>>>>> While I am unsure whether Rota ought to be categorized as philosopher or
>>>>> mathematician or both.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Quatsch wird gelöscht, ohne gelesen zu werden
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kerem jojjenek maskor es kulonosen masho
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> הִשְׁתַּדֵּל‎   הִזְדַּקֵּן‎
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> palma,  a paolo shaul םֹשׁ ְרֵגּ‎
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:23 PM Antonino Drago <drago at unina.it> wrote:
>>>>>> D. Kant: “On the other hand, some philosophers also argue that the
>>>>>> axiomatic view on mathematics may be harmful in that it omits fundamental
>>>>>> aspects of mathematical practice and idealizes mathematical reasoning in
>>>>>> an unfaithful way.”
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Which philosophers? I’m interested in any references you have on this
>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Joe Shipman
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Take for example Jean Le Rond D’Alembert “Elémens” in Encyclopédie
>>>>>> Française :  a « rational » theory leaves always some « holes »(trous)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lazare Carnot  Essai sur les machines en général ; pp. 105-106
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A century ago Lorentz, Poincaré and Einstein contrasted two kinds of
>>>>>> theories, as Flores illustrated: Flores, F. (1999). Einstein’s Theory of
>>>>>> Theories and Types of Theoretical Explanation. International Studies in
>>>>>> Philosophy of Science, 13,
>>>>>> 123-134.https://doi.org/10.1080/02698599908573613.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In my opinion, axiomatic theories cannot represent theories based on the
>>>>>> search of a new method for solving a basic problem (as e.g. is
>>>>>> Kolmogorov’s paper of 1924-25, or Markov’s paper on constructive
>>>>>> mathematics 1971).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Antonino Drago
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> <Indiscrete Thoughts by Gian-Carlo Rota (auth.), Fabrizio Palombi (eds.)
>>> (z-lib.org).pdf>
>> 
> 
>