4.6 Article

Intellectual humility in mathematics

期刊

SYNTHESE
卷 199, 期 3-4, 页码 5571-5601

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-021-03037-3

关键词

Humility; Philosophy of mathematical practices; Virtue epistemology; Virtue; Erdő s– Selberg dispute; Abc-conjecture; Multiverse logic

资金

  1. Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO) [G056716N]
  2. Centre for Mathematical Cognition at Loughborough University
  3. European Commission via the Marie Skodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship scheme [883724]
  4. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [883724] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines how intellectual humility manifests in mathematical practices using accounts developed by virtue epistemologists. While these accounts are insightful, adjustments may be needed for the development of a virtue theory of mathematical practices. Additionally, case studies reveal dimensions of intellectual humility that virtue epistemologists have overlooked in their theoretical reflections.
In this paper I explore how intellectual humility manifests in mathematical practices. To do this I employ accounts of this virtue as developed by virtue epistemologists in three case studies of mathematical activity. As a contribution to a Topical Collection on virtue theory of mathematical practices this paper explores in how far existing virtue-theoretic frameworks can be applied to a philosophical analysis of mathematical practices. I argue that the individual accounts of intellectual humility are successful at tracking some manifestations of this virtue in mathematical practices and fail to track others. There are two upshots to this. First, the accounts of the intellectual virtues provided by virtue epistemologists are insightful for the development of a virtue theory of mathematical practices but require adjustments in some cases. Second, the case studies reveal dimensions of intellectual humility virtue epistemologists have thus far overlooked in their theoretical reflections.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据