Abstract
This paper provides a sorely-needed evaluation of the view that mathematical explanations in science explain by unifying. Illustrating with some novel examples, I argue that the view is misguided. For believers in mathematical explanations in science, my discussion rules out one way of spelling out how they work, bringing us one step closer to the right way. For non-believers, it contributes to a divide-and-conquer strategy for showing that there are no such explanations in science. My discussion also undermines the appeal to unifying power in support of the enhanced indispensability argument.
Highlights
Call any explanation of a physical phenomenon that turns on a pure mathematical fact a mathematical explanation
Assuming that there are mathematical explanations in science, I argue against the view that they explain by unifying
With some examples on the table, and a better understanding of what it means to say that mathematical explanations explain by unifying, we can begin to evaluate what munificationism says about its targets
Summary
Call any explanation of a physical phenomenon that turns on a pure mathematical fact a mathematical explanation. Some have appealed to the unifying power of mathematics in support of this premise, presupposing that increasing mathematical unification increases explanatory power (see Baker 2009: 621, 2017: 199; Baker and Colyvan 2011: 331; Colyvan 2002: 71–72). For those who believe in mathematical explanations in science, it takes us one step closer to the right theory of them by process of elimination, and provides a guiding principle to help with the search. It undermines the appeal to unifying power in support of the enhanced indispensability argument
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
