Truth vs. pretense in discourse about motion (or, why the sun really does rise)
Noûs 41 (2):298–317 (2007)
| Abstract | These days it is widely agreed that there is no such thing as absolute motion and rest; the motion of an object can only be characterized with respect to some chosen frame of reference.1 This is a fact of which many of us are well-aware, and yet a cursory consideration of the ways we ascribe motion to objects gives the impression that it is a fact we persistently ignore. We insist to the police officer that we came to a full and complete stop at the stop sign, we fret that traffic is moving too slowly, we observe that the sun has dropped below the hills on the horizon, all without ever saying which frames of reference we have in mind. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJason Stanley (2001). Hermeneutic Fictionalism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 25 (1):36–71.
Albert Einstein (1923). On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. In The Principle of Relativity. Dover.
A. H. Wertheim (1999). Motion Percepts: “Sense Specific,” “Kinematic,” or . . . ? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):338-340.
Robert Rynasiewicz (2000). On the Distinction Between Absolute and Relative Motion. Philosophy of Science 67 (1):70-93.
John David Rhodes & Elena Gorfinkel (eds.) (2011). Taking Place: Location and the Moving Image. University of Minnesota Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads20 ( #61,589 of 549,130 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,418 of 549,130 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
