{"title":"(厄尔曼-诺顿)洞论的一些哲学史前史","authors":"James Owen Weatherall","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The <em>celu</em> of the philosophical literature on the hole argument is the 1987 paper by Earman & Norton [“What Price Space-time Substantivalism? The Hole Story” <em>Br. J. Phil. Sci</em>]. 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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54442,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","volume":"70 ","pages":"Pages 79-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.02.002","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Some Philosophical Prehistory of the (Earman-Norton) hole argument\",\"authors\":\"James Owen Weatherall\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.02.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The <em>celu</em> of the philosophical literature on the hole argument is the 1987 paper by Earman & Norton [“What Price Space-time Substantivalism? The Hole Story” <em>Br. J. Phil. Sci</em>]. 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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\",\"volume\":\"70 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 79-87\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsb.2020.02.002\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219820300241\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1355219820300241","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
Some Philosophical Prehistory of the (Earman-Norton) hole argument
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
