Publikation:

Gone Till November : a Disagreement in Einstein Scholarship

Vorschaubild

Dateien

Zu diesem Dokument gibt es keine Dateien.

Datum

2016

Autor:innen

Herausgeber:innen

Kontakt

ISSN der Zeitschrift

Electronic ISSN

ISBN

Bibliografische Daten

Verlag

Schriftenreihe

Auflagebezeichnung

URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30229-4_9
ArXiv-ID

Internationale Patentnummer

Angaben zur Forschungsförderung

Projekt

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Sammlungen

Philosophie: Publikationen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz

Gesperrt bis

Titel in einer weiteren Sprache

Publikationstyp
Beitrag zu einem Sammelband
Publikationsstatus
Published

Erschienen in

SAUER, Tilman, ed., Raphael SCHOLL, ed.. The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies. Cham: Springer, 2016, pp. 179-200. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. 319. ISBN 978-3-319-30227-0. Available under: doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30229-4_9

Zusammenfassung

The present paper examines an episode from the historiography of the genesis of general relativity. Einstein rejected a certain theory in the so-called “Zurich notebook” in 1912–13, but he reinstated the same theory for a short period of time in the November of 1915. Why did Einstein reject the theory at first, and why did he change his mind later? The group of Einstein scholars who reconstructed Einstein’s reasoning in the Zurich notebook disagree on how to answer these questions. According to the “majority view”, Einstein was unaware of so-called “coordinate conditions”, and he relied on so-called “coordinate restrictions”. John Norton, on the other hand, claims that Einstein must have had coordinate conditions all along, but that he committed a different mistake, which he would repeat in the context of the famous “hole argument”. After an account of the two views, and of the reactions by the respective opponents, I will probe the two views for weaknesses, and try to determine how we might settle the disagreement. Finally, I will discuss emerging methodological issues.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache

Fachgebiet (DDC)
100 Philosophie

Schlagwörter

Konferenz

Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined

Forschungsvorhaben

Organisationseinheiten

Zeitschriftenheft

Zugehörige Datensätze in KOPS

Zitieren

ISO 690RÄZ, Tim, 2016. Gone Till November : a Disagreement in Einstein Scholarship. In: SAUER, Tilman, ed., Raphael SCHOLL, ed.. The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies. Cham: Springer, 2016, pp. 179-200. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. 319. ISBN 978-3-319-30227-0. Available under: doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-30229-4_9
BibTex
@incollection{Raz2016-05-25Novem-39724,
  year={2016},
  doi={10.1007/978-3-319-30229-4_9},
  title={Gone Till November : a Disagreement in Einstein Scholarship},
  number={319},
  isbn={978-3-319-30227-0},
  publisher={Springer},
  address={Cham},
  series={Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science},
  booktitle={The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies},
  pages={179--200},
  editor={Sauer, Tilman and Scholl, Raphael},
  author={Räz, Tim}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/39724">
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-08-02T08:40:58Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:issued>2016-05-25</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:creator>Räz, Tim</dc:creator>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">The present paper examines an episode from the historiography of the genesis of general relativity. Einstein rejected a certain theory in the so-called “Zurich notebook” in 1912–13, but he reinstated the same theory for a short period of time in the November of 1915. Why did Einstein reject the theory at first, and why did he change his mind later? The group of Einstein scholars who reconstructed Einstein’s reasoning in the Zurich notebook disagree on how to answer these questions. According to the “majority view”, Einstein was unaware of so-called “coordinate conditions”, and he relied on so-called “coordinate restrictions”. John Norton, on the other hand, claims that Einstein must have had coordinate conditions all along, but that he committed a different mistake, which he would repeat in the context of the famous “hole argument”. After an account of the two views, and of the reactions by the respective opponents, I will probe the two views for weaknesses, and try to determine how we might settle the disagreement. Finally, I will discuss emerging methodological issues.</dcterms:abstract>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2017-08-02T08:40:58Z</dc:date>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/39724"/>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dcterms:title>Gone Till November : a Disagreement in Einstein Scholarship</dcterms:title>
    <dc:contributor>Räz, Tim</dc:contributor>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Interner Vermerk

xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter

Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.

Prüfdatum der URL

Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation

Finanzierungsart

Kommentar zur Publikation

Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet
Diese Publikation teilen