, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 1111–1126 | Cite as

Is the Enhanced Indispensability Argument a Useful Tool in the Hands of Platonists?

  • Vladimir DrekalovićEmail author


Platonists in mathematics endeavour to prove the truthfulness of the proposal about the existence of mathematical objects. However, there have not been many explicit proofs of this proposal. One of the explicit ones is doubtlessly Baker’s Enhanced Indispensability Argument (EIA), formulated as a sort of modal syllogism. We aim at showing that the purpose of its creation – the defence of Platonist viewpoint – was not accomplished. Namely, the second premise of the Argument was imprecisely formulated, which gave space for various interpretations of the EIA. Moreover, it is not easy to perceive which of the more precise formulations of the above-mentioned premise would be acceptable. For all these reasons, it is disputable whether the EIA can be used to defend Platonist outlook. At the beginning of this century, Baker has shown that the so-called Quine-Putnam Indispensability Argument can not provide “full” platonism - a guarantee of the existence of all mathematical objects. It turns out, however, that the EIA has a similar disadvantage.


Philosophy of mathematics Platonism Enhanced indispensability argument Baker 


  1. Baker, A. (2003). The indispensability argument and multiple foundations for mathematics. The Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, A. (2005). Are there genuine mathematical explanations of physical phenomena? Mind, 114, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, A. (2009). Mathematical explanation in science. British Journal of Philosophy of Science, 60, 611–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, A. (2012). Science-driven mathematical explanation. Mind, 121(482), 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drekalović, V. (2015). Some aspects of understanding mathematical reality: existence, platonism, discovery. Axiomathes, 25(3), 313–333.Google Scholar
  6. Drekalović, V., & Žarnić, B. (2018). Which mathematical objects are referred to by the enhanced indispensability argument? Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 49(1), 121–126.Google Scholar
  7. Euler, L. (1750). Découverte d’un nouveau principe de mécanique [e177]. In Opera Omnia, volume 5 of II, pages 81–108. Originally published in Mémoires de l’académie des sciences de Berlin 6, 1752, pp. 185–217.Google Scholar
  8. Goles, E., Schulz, O., & Markus, M. (2001). Prime number selection of cycles in a predator-prey model. Complexity, 6(4), 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hunt, J. (2015). Indispensability and the problem of compatible explanations. Synthese, 193, 451–467. Scholar
  10. Landry, E. (2000). Category theory: The language of mathematics. Philosophy of Science, 66(Suppl. 3), S14–S27.Google Scholar
  11. McLarty, C. (1990). The uses and abuses of Topos theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 41, 351–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McLarty, C. (1992). Elementary categories, elementary Toposes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Molinini, D. (2014). Evidence, explanation, and enhanced indispensability. In D. Molinini, F. Pataut, & A. Sereni (Eds.), Synthese, special issue Indispensability and Explanation. doi:
  14. Pincock, C. (2012). Mathematics and scientific representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Quine, W.V. (1986). “Reply to Charles Parsons”, in L. Hahn and P. Schilpp (eds.), The Philosophy of W.V. Quine, La Salle, ILL: Open Court, pp. 396–403.Google Scholar
  16. Sereni, A. (2014). Equivalent explanations and mathematical realism. Reply to “Evidence, explanation and enhanced indispensability”. In D. Molinini, F. Pataut, & A. Sereni (Eds.), Synthese, Special Issue on Indispensability and Explanation. doi:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of MontenegroNikšićMontenegro

Personalised recommendations