FOM: Probes rather than Foundations
RTragesser at compuserve.com
Sat Feb 14 13:21:40 EST 1998
To: FOM, Proposal for a Change of Root Metaphor
from Foundations to Probes.
I propose a change in the basic metaphor
from foundation on which one builds to probes
through which one finds out.
What is probed are as it were "naturally"
occuring mathematical theories/results, concepts,
Probes are typically logical constructs (in
some very general sense). We "probe" with such a
construct (or congeries of constructs) by "interpreting"
or "translating" the mathematical
phenomena into them (typically not without some un-
interpreted or untranslated residue). Optimally
the probes are better understood than what is
probed. One can then understand why first-order
logic is good probe material. Well understood;
ease and naturalness of translation/interpretation;
in one way or another it has a universal character
in that all mathematical phenomena can be probed
with it-- translated into it, albeit informativeness
This switch of metaphors has several advantages.
(1) it extends the sense of Stu Shapiro's "foundations
without foundationalism"; (2) it makes one more reflective
about what one is doing, what end one seeks, and about
whether the probes one chooses is optimal; (3) it dampens
ideological fervor forcing a more scientific and professional
considerations of ends and means; (4) it removes the temptation
to (I think) quite fruitless disputes about what are the
more natural or simpler "foundations" of a piece of mathematics
(replacing them with the question: what do we learn from
this "probe" that we don't from that). . .
Give such and such (what Sol Feferman calls) global
or local foundational problems, we are give pause to ask:
what sort of probes (applied to what mathematical phenomeno)
would show us the way to their solution.
Professor in the History and
Philosophy of Science and Mathematics
More information about the FOM