You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Preview not available
Arguing for mathematical realism on the basis of Field's explanationist version of the Quine—Putnam Indispensability argument, Alan Baker has recently claimed to have found an instance of a genuine mathematical explanation of a physical phenomenon. While I agree that Baker presents a very interesting example in which mathematics plays an essential explanatory role, I show that this example, and the argument built upon it, begs the question against the mathematical nominalist.
Synthese © 2008 Springer