The Two Dogmas of Naturalism

HAO Zhaokuan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15994/j.1000-0763.2013.03.004
2013-01-01
Abstract:In this paper we discuss three forms of naturalism held by Quine, Maddy and Feng Ye respectively, and try to show that some of them are too strong to be called naturalists, as their positions conflict with the basic principles of naturalism; some of them are too weak, in which sense even a Platonist, such as G del, could be regarded as a naturalist. We also try to show that none of these forms of naturalism could explain the mathematical practice since the 1960s, especially the studies in the foundation of mathematics, though they all claimed that the first principle of naturalism was to respect the practices in sciences.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?