Skip to main content

Part of the book series: A Pallas Paperback ((EPIS,volume 10))

  • 178 Accesses

Abstract

Spengler, more than any other student of mathematics as a sociocultural phenomenon, carries us to, if not over, the threshold of a sociology of mathematics that is free of transcendental and idealist assumptions. Bloor notes that the main barrier to a sociology of mathematics is “the idea that mathematics has a life of its own and a meaning of its own”.1 He is sympathetic to Spengler’s viewpoint; but his own version of a naturalistic approach to number contains some contradictions. He believes, on the one hand, in an eternal, material world that is the source of “permanent” truth. On the other hand, he argues that belief in a material world “does not justify the conclusion that there is any final or privileged state of adaptation to it which constitutes absolute knowledge or truth”.2 This statement is at odds with what Bloor has christened “the strong program in the sociology of knowledge”. The strong program is (a) causal (what conditions “bring about belief or states of knowledge”?); (b) “impartial with respect to truth and falsity, rationality, or irrationality, success or failure”, (c) symmetrical: true and false beliefs are explained in terms of the same types of causes, and (d) reflexive: the explanatory patterns in the strong program apply to sociology itself.3 Bloor’s “methodological relativism” is unhinged, however, by the scientistic basis of the strong program: “only proceed as the other sciences proceed”, Bloor asserts, “and all will be well”.4

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. Hofstadter, Godel, Escher, Bach, Basic Books, New York, 1979, pp. 582–583.

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. Bohm, Fragmentation and Wholeness, Wan Leer Jerusalem Foundation: Jerusalem, 1976, p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  4. This discussion is based primarily on J. L. Richards, ‘The Art and Science of British Algebra: A Study in the Perception of Mathematical Truth’, Historia Mathematica, Vol. 7, 1980a, pp. 343–365; and ‘Mathematics as a Science’, 1980b, paper presented at the annual meeting of the History of Science Society, Oct. 17,1980, Toronto, Canada.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Richards, 1980a, op. cit. p. 346.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ibid., p. 360; S. Cannon, Science in Culture: The Early Victorian Period, Dawson Scientific History Publications, New York, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  7. This discussion is based on R, Collins and S. Restivo, ‘Robber Barons and Politicians in Mathematics’, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 1983, forthcoming; and J. W. Dauben, Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the Infinite. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  8. The conjecture that mathematics and religion are intricately intertwined is nowhere more clearly expressed than in Spengler, op. cit., pp. 56, 66, 380, 394.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See, for example, M. Kline, Mathematics: A Cultural Approach, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1962, pp. 582, 661, 665; cf. D. Gasking, ‘Mathematics and the World’, in Newman, Vol. III, op. cit., p. 1710.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. Bloor, ‘Polyhedra and the Abominations of Leviticus’, The British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. II, No. 39 1978, pp. 245–272; I. Lakatos, Proofs and Refutations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1976; M. Douglas, Natural Symbols, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bloor, 1978, op. cit., p. 251.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1982, p. 138.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D. Bloor, ‘Durkheim and Mauss Revisited: Gassification and the Sociology of Knowledge’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, forthcoming (draft ms. 1979 ).

    Google Scholar 

  14. D. MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930, University of Edinburgh Press, Edinburgh, 1981. This is a slightly edited version of a book review that appeared in the 4S Newsletter Vol. 7, No. 3 (Fall), 1982, pp. 48–51.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Docstocvsky wrote: “… twice-two-makes-four is not life, gentlemen. It is the beginning of death. Twice-two-makes-four is, in my humble opinion, nothing but a piece of impudence… a farcical dressed up fellow who stands across your path with arms akimbo and spits at you. Mind you, I quite agree that twice-two-makes-four is a most excellent thing; but if we are to give everything its due, then twice-two-makes-five is sometimes a most charming little thing, too”. It is not clear that this sort of exercise can be “explained” by referring to it as “merely” an expression of literary priviledge. The ability to imagine “2 + 2 = 5” does not give us “necessary truth” as would be expected if we adhered to the philosopher and mathematician William Whewell’s distinction between necessary and contingent truths, proposed in 1844; F. Doestoevsky, ‘Notes From the Underground’, in The Best Short Stories of Doestoevsky, Modern Library, New York, n.d., p. 139; and see Richards, 1980a, op. dr., p. 362.

    Google Scholar 

  16. “All representations (pictorial, verbal, realistic, abstract) are actively constructed assemblages of conventions or meaningful cultural resources that must be understood and assessed in terms of their role in activities”: B. Barnes, Interests and the Growth of Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1977, p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. C. Boyer, A History of Mathematics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1968, p. 585; Struik, 1967, op. cit., p. 167.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. D. Aleksandrov, ‘Non-Euclidean Geometry’, in A. D. Aleksandrov, A. B. Kolmogorov, and M. A. Laurent’ev (eds.), Mathematics: Its Content, Method, and Meaning, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., Vol. III, 1969, p. 183.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1985 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Restivo, S. (1985). Mathematics and World View. In: The Social Relations of Physics, Mysticism, and Mathematics. A Pallas Paperback, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7058-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7058-8_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-277-2084-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-7058-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics