Does the father of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, have something to offer to twenty-first century epistemology and philosophy of science? The book, The Relation between Formal Science and Natural Science gives a positive answer to this question.
The Relation between Formal Science and Natural Science proposes Husserl's philosophy and epistemology of mathematics as viable platonist alternatives to W. V. O. Quine's and Hilary Putnam's views on science and its relationship with logic and mathematics.
The author shows that Quine's rejection of the analytic and synthetic dichotomy does not offer an adequate understanding of formal science and natural science. The author uses Husserl's philosophy, and explores that nature of logic and mathematics, their relationship, and how they provade the a priori basis for any science whatsoever. He also responds to many objections raised against platonism, and refutes some alternatives such as fictionism and semiplatonism. Once that he shows that a platonist epistemology of mathematics is possible, he refutes Quine's and Putnam's assertions that it is possible to revise formal science in light of recalcitrant experience, and that formal science exists because it is indispensable for science.This book is the first part of the Underdetermination of Science Project, and asserts, from a platonist standpoint, that the revisability of natural-scientific theories does not extend to formal science.