Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks [Book Review]

Philosophical Review 107 (1):142-146 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

For much of this century, philosophers hoped that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would play the role of physician to philosophy. Its development would positively influence the philosophy of methodology and confirmation, and its ontology would answer many traditional philosophical debates—for example, the issue of spacetime substantivalism. In physics, by contrast, the attitude is increasingly that GTR itself needs a physician. The more we learn about GTR the more we discover how odd are the spacetimes that it allows. Not only does GTR permit singularities, naked and clothed, but it allows time travel, topology change, and event and particle horizons, to name but a few of these oddities. Rather than revel in the riches of the theory, however, many physicists seek to rule out one or more of the above “pathologies” on the grounds that they are “physically unreasonable.” Thus contemporary researchers hawk various “cures” for the “illnesses” of GTR: among them, Chronology Protection to ensure against time travel, Cosmic Censorship for naked singularities, Inflation for horizons, and so on. The physics of these illnesses and cures, and the problems they engender, are the source of much controversy in the physics literature. Philosophers have largely neglected it. But clearly the subject needs philosophers of physics to determine whether the patient is genuinely ailing, and if so, to sift the real antidotes from the snake oil.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers and Shrieks. [REVIEW]P. E. Hodgson - 1996 - International Philosophical Quarterly 36 (4):494-495.
Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks. [REVIEW]Henry J. Folse - 2000 - International Studies in Philosophy 32 (2):138-139.
Review of Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks. [REVIEW]Douglas Kutach - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (4):649-651.
Critical Notice.Steven F. Savitt - 1999 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 29 (3):479-490.
Review of "Bangs, crunches, shrieks, whispers" by J Earman. [REVIEW]Graham Oppy - 1998 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76 (2):352-4.
Bangs, crunches, wimps, and geeks. [REVIEW]G. Belot - 1998 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 29 (2):273-275.
Plantinga properties and the ontological argument.Bangs L. Tapscott - 1971 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 31 (4):604-605.
Correcting the tableau procedure for ${\rm S}4$.Bangs L. Tapscott - 1984 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 25 (3):241-249.
A simplified natural deduction approach to certain modal systems.Bangs L. Tapscott - 1987 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 28 (3):371-384.
Armageddon science: the science of mass destruction.Brian Clegg - 2010 - New York, N.Y.: St. Martin's Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-03-18

Downloads
23 (#584,666)

6 months
1 (#1,042,085)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Craig Callender
University of California, San Diego

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references