The Lure of Whitehead

Process Studies 45 (1):109-114 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article addresses both philosophers of science and process philosophers. It shows that the acceptance of Einstein's general theory of relativity by British physicists in the early 1920s, and their rejection of Whitehead's experimentally indistinguishable theory of gravity, was a matter not only of empirical evaluation but also of aesthetic preference. To philosophers of science it offers a historical case study illustrating the entangled roles of empirical and aesthetic criteria in theory evaluation. To process philosophers it offers an answer to the question of why Whitehead's alternative rendering of Einstein's general relativity has been neglected both by the majority of physicists, and by the majority of philosophers.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

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

Whitehead and Schools X, Y, and Z.Graham Harman - 2014 - In Nicholas Gaskill & Adam Nocek (eds.), The Lure of Whitehead. Univ. of Minnesota Press. pp. 231-248.
Principia Mathematica Centenary.Ronny Desmet - 2010 - Process Studies 39 (2):225-263.
The Lure of Whitehead.Nicholas Gaskill & A. J. Nocek (eds.) - 2014 - Minneapolis: Univ of Minnesota Press.
Reconsidering Whitehead with Devaux.Ronny Desmet - 2008 - Logique Et Analyse 51 (202):167.
Thinking With Whitehead. [REVIEW]Ronny Desmet - 2011 - Process Studies 40 (1):179-186.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-08-10

Downloads
31 (#501,295)

6 months
11 (#226,803)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references