Some Philosophical Prehistory of the (Earman-Norton) hole argument

Q1 Arts and Humanities

Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.02.002

James Owen Weatherall

引用次数: 9

Abstract

The celu of the philosophical literature on the hole argument is the 1987 paper by Earman & Norton [“What Price Space-time Substantivalism? The Hole Story” Br. J. Phil. Sci]. This paper has a well-known back-story, concerning work by Stachel and Norton on Einstein's thinking in the years 1913–15. Less well-known is a connection between the hole argument and Earman's work on Leibniz in the 1970s and 1980s, which in turn can be traced to an argument first presented in 1975 by Howard Stein. Remarkably, this thread originates with a misattribution: the argument Earman attributes to Stein, which ultimately morphs into the hole argument, was not the argument Stein gave. The present paper explores this episode and presents some reflections on how it bears on the subsequent literature.

查看原文本刊更多论文

(厄尔曼-诺顿)洞论的一些哲学史前史

关于孔论证的哲学文献最早是1987年Earman &《时空实体论的价值是什么?》《洞的故事》j·菲尔。Sci)。这篇论文有一个众所周知的背景故事，是关于斯塔切尔和诺顿在1913-15年间对爱因斯坦思想的研究。不太为人所知的是，在20世纪70年代和80年代，厄尔曼对莱布尼茨的研究与空洞理论之间存在联系，而这又可以追溯到1975年霍华德·斯坦首次提出的一个论点。值得注意的是，这条线索起源于一个错误的归因:Earman赋予Stein的论证，最终演变成空洞论证，并不是Stein给出的论证。本文对这一事件进行了探讨，并就其对后续文献的影响提出了一些思考。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 物理-科学史与科学哲学

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

13.3 weeks

期刊介绍： Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics is devoted to all aspects of the history and philosophy of modern physics broadly understood, including physical aspects of astronomy, chemistry and other non-biological sciences. The primary focus is on physics from the mid/late-nineteenth century to the present, the period of emergence of the kind of theoretical physics that has come to dominate the exact sciences in the twentieth century. The journal is internationally oriented with contributions from a wide range of perspectives. In addition to purely historical or philosophical papers, the editors particularly encourage papers that combine these two disciplines. The editors are also keen to publish papers of interest to physicists, as well as specialists in history and philosophy of physics.