Aesthetic Comparison of Einstein's and Whitehead's Theories of Gravity

Process Studies 45 (1):33-46 (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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,219

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

The Lure of Whitehead.Ronny Desmet - 2016 - Process Studies 45 (1):109-114.
Whitehead’s Theory of Relativity.Dean R. Fowler - 1975 - Process Studies 5 (3):159-174.
Whitehead’s Other Aesthetic.William Dean - 1983 - Process Studies 13 (1):104-112.
Whitehead’s Other Aesthetic.William Dean - 1983 - Process Studies 13 (1):104-112.
The Gestalt Whitehead.Ronny Desmet - 2015 - Process Studies 44 (2):190-223.
Einstein's unification.Jeroen van Dongen - 2010 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Whitehead’s Principle of Relativity.Jorge Luis Nobo - 1978 - Process Studies 8 (1):1-20.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-08-10

Downloads
54 (#402,626)

6 months
14 (#234,785)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Alfred north Whitehead.A. D. Irvine - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references