几何建构主义与模态关系主义:动力学/几何之争的进一步方面

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE International Studies in the Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI:10.1080/02698595.2020.1813530
James Read
{"title":"几何建构主义与模态关系主义:动力学/几何之争的进一步方面","authors":"James Read","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2020.1813530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT I draw together some recent literature on the debate between dynamical versus geometrical approaches to spacetime theories, in order to argue that (i) there exist defensible versions of the geometrical approach; (ii) these versions of the geometrical approach can provide constructive explanations (in the sense of Einstein) of dynamical effects; (iii) light can be shed upon different relationalist views about spacetime which have been articulated in the context of this debate by appeal to the distinction between modal versus non-modal relationalism.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":"33 1","pages":"23 - 41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02698595.2020.1813530","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Geometrical Constructivism and Modal Relationalism: Further Aspects of the Dynamical/Geometrical Debate\",\"authors\":\"James Read\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02698595.2020.1813530\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT I draw together some recent literature on the debate between dynamical versus geometrical approaches to spacetime theories, in order to argue that (i) there exist defensible versions of the geometrical approach; (ii) these versions of the geometrical approach can provide constructive explanations (in the sense of Einstein) of dynamical effects; (iii) light can be shed upon different relationalist views about spacetime which have been articulated in the context of this debate by appeal to the distinction between modal versus non-modal relationalism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"23 - 41\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02698595.2020.1813530\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2020.1813530\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2020.1813530","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

摘要:我汇集了一些关于时空理论中动力学方法与几何方法之间争论的最新文献,以证明(I)几何方法存在可辩护的版本;(ii)几何方法的这些版本可以对动力学效应提供建设性的解释(在爱因斯坦的意义上);(iii)通过对模态关系论和非模态关系论之间的区别的呼吁,可以阐明关于时空的不同关系论观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Geometrical Constructivism and Modal Relationalism: Further Aspects of the Dynamical/Geometrical Debate
ABSTRACT I draw together some recent literature on the debate between dynamical versus geometrical approaches to spacetime theories, in order to argue that (i) there exist defensible versions of the geometrical approach; (ii) these versions of the geometrical approach can provide constructive explanations (in the sense of Einstein) of dynamical effects; (iii) light can be shed upon different relationalist views about spacetime which have been articulated in the context of this debate by appeal to the distinction between modal versus non-modal relationalism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
自引率
12.50%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: International Studies in the Philosophy of Science is a scholarly journal dedicated to publishing original research in philosophy of science and in philosophically informed history and sociology of science. Its scope includes the foundations and methodology of the natural, social, and human sciences, philosophical implications of particular scientific theories, and broader philosophical reflection on science. The editors invite contributions not only from philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science, but also from researchers in the sciences. The journal publishes articles from a wide variety of countries and philosophical traditions.
期刊最新文献
Tightrope-Walking Rationality in Action: Feyerabendian Insights for the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Natural Selection, Mechanism and Phenomenon Are the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) Applicable in Determining the Optimal Fit and Simplicity of Mechanistic Models? Reviewers Acknowledgement Defending a Realist Stance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1