No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Reply to Torretti and Giannoni
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2022
Extract
Robert Torretti's objection is verificationism writ large. We reply that verificationism is to be rejected. Carlo Giannoni's objection is that our test for tilting fails because the rod might tilt and yet no current flow through its mid-point. We reply that nevertheless we can test for tilting because there would still be differences detectable with a glavanometer.
- Type
- Discussion
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979
References
Friedman, M. (1977), “Simultaneity in Newtonian Mechanics and Special Relativity,” in Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, (ed. J. Earman, et. al.), vol. VIII Minnesota.Google Scholar
Giannoni, C. (1979), “Comment on”Relative Simultaneity in the Special Theory of Relativity,“ ' Philosophy of Science, this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F. and Pargetter, R. (1977), “Relative Simultaneity in Special Relativity,” Philosophy of Science 44, no. 3: 464–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1969), “The Conventionality of Simultaneity,” Philosophy of Science 36: 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torretti, R. (1979), “Jackson and Pargetter's Criterion of Distant Simultaneity,” Philosophy of Science, this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winnie, J. A. (1970), “Special Relativity without One-Way Velocity Assumptions,” Philosophy of Science 37, no. 1: 81–99; no. 2: 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar