David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 49 (3):463-477 (1982)
In "The Epistemology of Geometry" Glymour proposed a necessary structural condition for the synonymy of two space-time theories. David Zaret has recently challenged this proposal, by arguing that Newtonian gravitational theory with a flat, non-dynamic connection (FNGT) is intuitively synonymous with versions of the theory using a curved dynamical connection (CNGT), even though these two theories fail to satisfy Glymour's proposed necessary condition for synonymy. Zaret allowed that if FNGT and CNGT were not equally well (bootstrap) tested by the relevant phenomena, the two theories would in fact not be synonymous. He argued, however, that when electrodynamic phenomena are considered, the two theories are equally well tested. We show that it is not FNGT and CNGT which are equally well tested when the electrodynamic phenomena are considered, but only suitable extensions of FNGT and CNGT. Thus, there is good reason to consider FNGT and CNGT to be non-synonymous. We further show that the two extensions of FNGT and CNGT which are equally well tested when electrodynamic phenomena are considered (and which could be considered intuitively synonymous) not only satisfy Glymour's original proposed necessary condition for the synonymy of space-time theories, they satisfy a plausible stronger condition as well
|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
Olaf Mueller (1998). Does the Quine/Duhem Thesis Prevent Us From Defining Analyticity? On Fallacy in Quine. Erkenntnis 48 (1):81 - 99.
David Zaret (1980). A Limited Conventionalist Critique of Newtonian Space-Time. Philosophy of Science 47 (3):474-494.
John D. Norton, What Can We Learn About the Ontology of Space and Time From the Theory of Relativity?
Roberto Poli (2007). Three Obstructions: Forms of Causation, Chronotopoids, and Levels of Reality. [REVIEW] Axiomathes 17 (1):1-18.
Laszlo E. Szabo (forthcoming). Lorentzian Theories Vs. Einsteinian Special Relativity - a Logico-Empiricist Reconstruction. In A. Maté, M. Rédei & F. Stadler (eds.), Vienna Circle and Hungary -- Veröffentlichungen des Instituts Wiener Kreis. Springer.
Lennart Äqvist (1962). Comments on the Paradox of Analysis. Inquiry 5 (1-4):260-264.
Mario Bacelar Valente, Did the Concepts of Space and Time Change That Much with the 1905 Theory of Relativity?
Bruce Glymour (2008). Stable Models and Causal Explanation in Evolutionary Biology. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):571-583.
Olaf Mueller (1998). Does the Quine/Duhem Thesis Prevent Us From Defining Analyticity? Erkenntnis 48 (1):85-104.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #146,511 of 1,140,038 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #92,708 of 1,140,038 )
How can I increase my downloads?