The Historiography of Special Relativity: Comments on the Papers by John Earman, Clark Glymour, and Robert Rynasiewicz and by Arthur Miller
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:417 - 428 (1982)
Two problems in the paper by EGR are considered. One is the lack of any direct confirmatory evidence for the elegant rational reconstruction. The second is a significant gap in the historical account, just at the critical point in Einstein's discovery process -- namely, the reanalysis of simultaneity. In addition, the EGR account appears in danger of being overly focused on the electrodynamical aspect of special relativity to the exclusion of optical null experiments, and in particular to the exclusion of the role of the 1887 Michelson-Morely interferometer experiment. The author disagrees with Miller on the Kantian aspects of Poincare, and on the role of Anschauungen, preferring to sketch instead a more important role for a Mach-like analysis of fundamental scientific concepts. It is argued that Miller has misconstrued the difference between an axiomatic theory and a "theory of principle" in Einstein's approach. Finally, some suggestions are made as to how the gap in our analysis of Einstein's revolution in simultaneity might be reexamined.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John Earman, Clark Glymour & Robert Rynasiewicz (1982). On Writing the History of Special Relativity. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:403 - 416.
John D. Norton (2009). How Hume and Mach Helped Einstein Find Special Relativity. In Michael Friedman, Mary Domski & Michael Dickson (eds.), Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science. Open Court 359--86.
Arthur I. Miller (1982). On Einstein's Invention of Special Relativity. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:377 - 402.
Max Jammer (2006). Concepts of Simultaneity: From Antiquity to Einstein and Beyond. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Frank Jackson & Robert Pargetter (1977). Relative Simultaneity in the Special Relativity. Philosophy of Science 44 (3):464-474.
G. Granek (2000). Poincare's Contributions to Relativistic Dynamics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 31 (1):15-48.
John Norton, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and the Problems in the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies That Led Him to It.
Nicholas Maxwell (1993). Induction and Scientific Realism: Einstein Versus Van Fraassen Part Three: Einstein, Aim-Oriented Empiricism and the Discovery of Special and General Relativity. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (2):275-305.
Max Born (1965). Einstein's Theory of Relativity. New York, Dover Publications.
Harvey R. Brown & Christopher G. Timpson, Why Special Relativity Should Not Be a Template for a Fundamental Reformulation of Quantum Mechanics.
Bas C. Van Fraassen (1969). Conventionality in the Axiomatic Foundations of the Special Theory of Relativity. Philosophy of Science 36 (1):64 - 73.
Robert Rynasiewicz, Reichenbach's Epsilon Definition of Simultaneity in Historical and Philosophical Perspective.
Friedel Weinert (2005). Einstein and Kant. Philosophy 80 (4):585-593.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads3 ( #657,844 of 1,938,800 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,338 of 1,938,800 )
How can I increase my downloads?