Contemporary debates in philosophy of science

Speaker: Oliver Pooley (University of Oxford)

Title: Paying Due Regard to the Hole Argument

Abstract: In a recent paper, James Weatherall argues that "the hole argument is based on a misleading use of the mathematical formalism of general relativity" (Weatherall, "Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’", British Journal for the Philosophy of Science). I disagree. I aim to reconstruct Earman and Norton's argument so as to make plain that its substantial assumptions are not vulnerable to Weatherall's critique. This is not to say that Earman and Norton's argument is a good argument. I will give my own reasons for rejecting its antisubstantivalist conclusions. In both of these efforts I seek to pay due regard to the rich literature that followed in the wake of Earman and Norton's path-setting paper, some of the lessons of which seem to have been too quickly forgotten.

Weatherall, "Regarding the ‘Hole Argument’", British Journal for the Philosophy of Science