Abstract
In his influential paper ‘Mathematical Truth’1 Paul Benacerraf states two requirements for any account of mathematical truth to be worth considering, namely: (i) that the semantic treatment of mathematical statements does not differ essentially from the semantic treatment of non—mathematical statements, and (ii) that the account of mathematical truth harmonize with what he calls a reasonable epistemology. According to him, combinatorial accounts of mathematical truth, which tend to identify mathematical truth with derivability in a formal system, violate the first requirement, whereas, platonist philosophies of mathematics (like Gödel’s) violate the second requirement. Such a violation of the second requirement, however, depends on Benacerraf s understanding of ‘reasonable epistemology’. It should be clear that if one identifies ‘reasonable epistemology’ with empiricist theory of knowledge (causal or not), platonist philosophies of mathematics are not easy to reconcile with reasonable epistemologies. But such an identification need not be taken for granted.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
