Talk:Science Without Numbers

Philosophy: Literature / Logic / Science / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Logic
	Philosophy of science
	Contemporary philosophy

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the book Science Without Numbers argues that numbers are just useful fictions?

Source: doi:10.1093/philmat/nkn026: "Field ... does not accept any mathematical statements, applied or otherwise, as true; instead he regards mathematics as a useful fiction."

Reviewed:

Created by Shapeyness (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Shapeyness (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

will review this one. Artem.G (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is long enough, new enough, well-sourced, and free of copyvio. The hook is interesting. Qpq is not required. Happy to approve it!

You probably know about it, but quick googling led me to this book by Charles Chihara, with the whole 30+ page chapter devoted to the book [1]. Artem.G (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had a few Chihara sources on my list already but not that one yet

Shapeyness (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]