Template:Did you know nominations/Quine–Putnam indispensability argument
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Quine–Putnam indispensability argument
- ... that some philosophers of mathematics think that the life cycle of a species of cicadas is a good argument for the existence of numbers?
Source: "According to this line of thought, we ought to believe in electrons, say, not because they are indispensable to our best scientific theories but because they are indispensable in a very specific way: they are explanatorily indispensable. If mathematics could be shown to contribute to scientific explanations in this way, mathematical realism would again be on par with scientific realism [...] Prime-numbered life cycles mean that the Magicicadas avoid competition, potential predators, and hybridisation. The idea is quite simple: because prime numbers have no non-trivial factors, there are very few other life cycles that can be synchronised with a prime-numbered life cycle. The Magicicadas thus have an effective avoidance strategy that, under certain conditions, will be selected for. While the explanation being advanced involves biology (e.g. evolutionary theory, theories of competition and predation), a crucial part of the explanation comes from number theory, namely, the fundamental fact about prime numbers. Baker (2005) argues that this is a genuinely mathematical explanation of a biological fact." [1]- ALT1:... that some philosophers of mathematics think that the Quine–Putnam indispensability argument is the only good argument for the existence of numbers? Source: [2]
- ALT2:... that Alan Baker's version of the Quine–Putnam indispensability argument uses the life cycle of cicadas to argue for the existence of numbers?
- Reviewed: not required yet
- Comment: Added ALT2, a more serious wording as an alternative to the main hook proposal. Alduin2000 (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Converted from a redirect by Alduin2000 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC).
Length, history and references good to go. However, per the copyvio check, I think the numbered list in the intro, since it appears to have come straight from one of the sources, should be attributed there. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for reviewing. Are you talking about the numbered list in the lead which reads:
- We ought to have ontological commitment to all and only the entities that are indispensable to our best scientific theories.
- Mathematical entities are indispensable to our best scientific theories.
- Therefore, we ought to have ontological commitment to mathematical entities.
- The argument is currently attributed to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in the lead and I've added a citation there now as well. I think all the presentations of the different forms of the argument should now be attributed to either the SEP or the IEP where appropriate. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: update? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Good to go now. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: update? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
