Algunas consideraciones sobre el argumento de indispensabilidad en matemáticas

Abstract

The thesis of indispensability is usually taken to be an argument (probably the best one) for defending mathematical realism. The claim is associated with Quine and Putnam and asserts that, as far as the mathematical entities are indispensable to our best physical theories, they share the ontological status of scientific entities. Despite the fact that the thesis has suffered attacks from seemingly all directions, some authors keep trying to defend it. This paper tries mainly to analyse Elliot Sober’s criticism against the argument and it is suggested that must be abandoned or, at least, re-formulated.