Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T10:07:41.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Space-Time and Synonymy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Peter Spirtes  and
Clark Glymour
Peter Spirtes
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy, Science University of Pittsburgh
Clark Glymour
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy, Science University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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 spacetime theories, they satisfy a plausible stronger condition as well.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , September 1982 , pp. 463 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Earman, J. and Friedman, M. (1973), “The Meaning and Status of Newton's Law of Inertia”, Philosophy of Science 40: 329–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980), Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1977), “The Epistemology of Geometry”, Noûs 11: 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trautman, A. (1964), “Foundations and Current Problems of General Relativity”, in Deser, S. and Ford, K. W. (eds.), Brandeis Summer Institute in Theoretical Physics, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Zaret, D. (1980), “A Limited Conventionalist Critique of Newtonian Space-time”, Philosophy of Science 47: 474–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar