Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:59:15.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Reply to Torretti and Giannoni

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Frank Jackson
Affiliation:
Monash University
Robert Pargetter
Affiliation:
La Trobe University

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
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

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

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: 464474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1969), “The Conventionality of Simultaneity,” Philosophy of Science 36: 4463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1975), Space, Time, and Motion, California: Dickenson.Google 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: 223238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar