Lexington Books
Pages: 260
•
Trim: 6¼ x 9¼
978-0-7391-7312-1 • Hardback • June 2015 • $121.00 • (£93.00)
978-0-7391-7313-8 • eBook • June 2015 • $114.50 • (£88.00)
Russell Marcus is assistant professor of philosophy at Hamilton College.
Chapter One: Platonism: An Overview
Chapter Two: The Quinean Indispensability Argument
Chapter Three: Problems for QI
Chapter Four: The Weasel
Chapter Five: The Unfortunate Consequences
Chapter Six: The Putnamian Indispensability Argument
Chapter Seven: The Explanatory Indispensability Argument
Chapter Eight: Motivating Autonomy Platonism
Chapter Nine: Plenitudinous Platonism
Chapter Ten: Intuition-Based Autonomy Platonism
Chapter Eleven: Circles and Justification
Chapter Twelve: Conclusions
[T]here is plenty of thought-provoking material to be found in this book, and it fills an important gap in the philosophy of mathematics literature. Marcus’s writing style is clear and lively. (I liked his remark (p. 109) that ‘philosophy should not be burden-of-proof volleyball’.) The book will be of interest both to those with a stake in the indispensability debates and to those looking to make progress developing more traditional defenses of platonism.
— Philosophica Mathematica
Autonomy Platonism and the Indispensability Argument contributes clarity and resourcefulness to a trenchant debate.
— Metaphilosophy
Russell Marcus has written a very good book. It is extremely clear and well-written, and it argues, rightly I think, for the important claim that traditional versions of platonism, which take mathematics to be justified independently of the empirical sciences, are superior to new-fangeled versions of platonism that take the ultimate justification for mathematics to be based on its usefulness in science.
— Mark Balaguer, California State University, Los Angeles
Is mathematics justified through its empirical applications? Yes, say indispensabilist platonists, and no, say autonomy platonists. With skill and aplomb, Marcus argues for autonomy platonism and against indispensability platonism. This book is a significant contribution to the central debate in contemporary philosophy of mathematics and deserves a wide readership.
— A. C. Paseau, University of Oxford