Why Husserl should have been a strong revisionist in mathematics

Abstract

Husserl repeatedly has claimed that (1) mathematics without a philosophical foundation is not a science but a mere technique; (2) philosophical considerations may lead to the rejection of parts of mathematical practice; but (3) they cannot lead to mathematical innovations. My thesis is that Husserl’s third claim is wrong, by his own standards. To explain this thesis, let me first introduce the term ‘revisionism’. It is understood here, following Crispin Wright, as the term that applies to ‘any philosophical standpoint which reserves the potential right to sanction or modify pure mathematical practice’ [Wright 1980, p.117]. I want to make a distinction between weak and strong revisionism. The point of reference is the actual practice of mathematics. Weak revisionism then potentially sanctions a subset of this practice, while strong revisionism potentially not only limits but extends it, in different directions. In strong revisionism, certain combinations of limitation and extension may lead to a mathematics that is no longer compatible with the unrevised one. ‘May lead’, not ‘necessarily leads’: it is all a matter of reserving rights; whether there is occasion to exercise them is a further question. To illustrate these categories, let me give examples of non-revisionism, weak revisionism, and strong revisionism.