Review outlines the lack of common methodology in the philosophy of mathematics, suggesting five canons.
Practice-based approaches to philosophy of mathematics have gone mainstream over the past several decades. As the paradigm has grown in popularity, however, there’s been little sustained meditation—and still less any explicit consensus—on what precisely it means for philosophy to take practice seriously. The field’s lack of a clear common methodology has begun to make itself felt in slowed and uncertain progress on core problems. Here I review the methodological situation and propose five canons to guide future research. I focus throughout on the study of explanation in mathematics as a guiding example.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William D’Alessandro (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: