Abstract
During Einstein’s lifetime, the special and general theories of relativity were quite frequently interpreted by philosophers. Most of these interpretations actually were misinterpretations. Even today interpretative statements about relativity theory are often false or highly misleading. Why is this so? In my Ph.D. dissertation (Hentschel 1990a), I analyzed (mis)interpretations by 10 different philosophical schools active in the early twentieth century which widely differed in their approaches, emphasis and blind spots. Many of these interpreters – including philosophers of high standing such as Ernst Cassirer, Moritz Schlick or Joseph Petzoldt – had studied the theory intensely and many even had close contact with Einstein himself or with one of the members of his “protective belt” of close friends and allies. Rather than declaring all of these (mis)interpreters as either luminaries or idiots (which would be implausible, if not downright silly), I show structurally how these misunderstandings arose and why they were kind of unavoidable, even for highly qualified and often well-informed interpreters. More popular texts about relativity theory were often second-order interpretations of these first-order accounts, thus multiplying the first-order errors of misinterpretations. I will give a few characteristic examples but my focus will rather be on structural characteristics of these misinterpretations. I will discuss how to analyze them historically by means of interpretational frames. A link will also be made to Ludwik Fleck’s thesis that socially and cognitively stabilized “thought collectives” (“Denkkollektive”) exert strong constraints on human thinking and interpretation (“Denkzwang”). My concept of interpretational frames is one method to formalize and analyze the complex interrelations between different assumptions and inferences within such a frame of thinking (“Denkstil”). Semantic frames and word clouds are also discussed as alternative approaches but both are discarded as unsuitable for the purpose of reconstructing interpretative frames.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See my book review of three of the most important recent historical studies on these light deflection expeditions and their context: Hentschel (2020).
- 3.
As some so-called „scientific biographies” of Einstein such as Abraham Pais (1982) do.
- 4.
The book is freely available online for download at https://doi.org/10.18419/opus-7182 and at https://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/bitstream/11682/7199/1/hen47.pdf and via research gate;
- 5.
- 6.
My colleagues Olival Freire and Olivier Darrigol are currently editing a volume of studies on the multifarious interpretations of quantum mechanics forthcoming at Oxford Univ. Press in 2022.
- 7.
For exemplary studies on the broad reception of relativity theory in various nations see the texts listed in footnote 1.
Graham (1972) deals with the reception of both relativity and quantum theory in the former Soviet Union.
- 8.
- 9.
See, e.g., Albert Einstein to Elsa Einstein, May 19, 1920 (in Engl. transl. by Ann M. Hentschel): “I have to study Cassirer’s manuscript, which is less amusing. These philosophers are peculiar birds.” below on the consequences of this withdrawal for the dynamics of the ensuing debates, which were then led by a belt of self-declared Einstein defenders.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
See Collins (1998): 30, 54ff., 81f. on the “law of small numbers”, limiting the overall size of these thought collectives as well as the number of people in their top level of intellectual forebearers and leaders.
- 13.
On the pattern of competing philosophers or philosophical schools of comparable stature and its positive impact on philosophical creativity, see Collins (1998): 6 and 73: “The intellectual world at its most intense has the structure of contending groups meshing together into a conflictual super-community.”
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
For similar structures in the history of philosophical thought since antiquity see Collins (1998).
- 17.
For a discussion of the subtle differences between Avenarius’s empiriocriticism and Mach’s phenomenalism and for a detailed discussion of Joseph Petzoldt’s interpretation of relativity theory (who was a pupil of Avenarius but became an ardent follower of Ernst Mach), see Dubislav (1929), Krauss (2019, 2021) and her contribution to this volume.
- 18.
- 19.
As the sociologist Collins (1998: 7) writes: “thinking consists in making “coalitions in the mind”, internalized from social networks, motivated by the emotional energies of social interactions”, and – I would add – also by cognitive, epistemic, ontological and methodological core assumptions, some of which define interpretational frames.
- 20.
See Hentschel (1990a, b, c): 390–424 and Hentschel (1991) particularly on Petzoldt; cf. Dubislav (1929) and the paper by Chiara Russo Krauss in this volume, who distinguishes more closely between Mach’s phenomenalism and Avenarius’s empiriocriticism. Petzoldt stood under the influence of both progenitors; Avenarius and Mach vigorously applauded each other’s writings, so it is questionable whether we should look at both groups as a single school of thought or as two such schools, certainly very closely related ones, but perhaps not identical.
- 21.
One is reminded of Einstein’s letter to Solovine, May 7, 1952, in which he drew a diagram on how to obtain these top-level axioms, starting from a base of empirical facts and observations, publ. in Solovine (ed.) 1956: 120f.
- 22.
- 23.
See Einstein (1916): „Ich glaube sogar, dass diejenigen, welche sich für Gegner von Mach halten, kaum wissen, wieviel von Machscher Betrachtungsweise sie sozusagen mit der Muttermilch eingesogen haben.“
On the young Einstein and his relation to Mach see the classic paper by Holton (1968), Pyenson (1985) as well as Hentschel (2019) and further references given there.
- 24.
This expression was first used by E. Kretschmann, Über den physikalischen Sinn der Relativitätspostulate, A. Einsteins neue und seine ursprüngliche Relativitätstheorie, Annalen der Physik 53 (1917): 576–614 and then rapidly used by Wilhelm Wien and many others, including Einstein himself.
- 25.
Mach (1872): 46: „Das Ziel der Naturwissenschaft ist der Zusammenhang der Erscheinungen. Die Theorien aber sind wie dürre Blätter, welche abfallen, wenn sie den Organismus der Wissenschaft eine Zeit lang in Athem gehalten haben.“
- 26.
Letter by Einstein to Michele Besso 29.4.1917, publ. in Speziali (ed.) 1972: 106 (“Ich erhielt gerade ein in den letzten Tagen fertiggestelltes Manuskript über Relativität von ihm [Adler], in dem er mit der Ueberzeugung des Propheten recht wertlose Spitzfindigkeiten überaus breit darlegt, sodass ich in peinlicher Verlegenheit darüber bin, was ich dazu sagen soll. Ich zerbreche mir unaufhöflich den Kopf darüber. Er reitet den Machschen Klepper bis zur Erschöpfung”); cf also CPAE vol. 8a (1998), Doc. 331.
- 27.
Michele Besso to Albert Einstein, May 5, 1917, in Speziali (ed.) 1972: 110: „Was das Mach’sche Rösslein betrifft, so wollen wir es nicht verschimpfen; hat es nicht die Höllenfahrt durch die Relativitäten betreut? Und wer weiss. ob er nicht auch noch bei den bösen Quanten den Reiter Dom Quixote de la Einsteina durchträgt.“
- 28.
Einstein to Besso, May 1917, in Speziali (ed.) 1972: 114: “Über das Mach'sche Rösslein schimpf ich nicht. Du weißt doch, wie ich darüber denke. Aber es kann nichts Lebendiges gebären, nur schädliches Gewürm ausrotten. Wenn Du A.s langes und breites Elaborat genossen hättest, würdest Du mein Bild vom zu Tode gerittenen Klepper ohne Weiteres begreifen.“
- 29.
Gadamer (1960/85), part two, II: 236 never formalized or schematized this insight. On the classical hermeneutic stance with regard to interpretations, see Gadamer (1960/85, 1974, 1995) and the extensive literature on hermeneutics. A good survey of this in English can be found in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, online at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/, consecutively written by Theodore George (2020), best in the third and last version.
- 30.
- 31.
or none of them, but their own self-esteem prevented them from believing that!
- 32.
This, again, is a feature well-known from the history and sociology of philosophy, with endemic and endless quarrels about who holds the ‘right’ interpretation of Plato, Kant, Hegel, etc.: see Collins (1998).
- 33.
For a survey of the philosophical interpretations of relativity theory in chronological order, see the contribution by Don Howard in this volume.
- 34.
Some traces of these shifting allegations are found in Einstein’s Autobiographical Notes (1949).
- 35.
- 36.
Collins (1998): 76.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
Ludwik Fleck 2011, in German transl. by Werner and Zittel (Ed.): 263, 265f., originally published in Polish in 1936, transl. into English by Cohen and Schnelle (eds.) (1986): 81.
- 42.
Ludwik Fleck (2011), originally published in Polish in 1936, transl. into English by Cohen and Schnelle (eds.) (1986): 83.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
Ludwik Fleck (2011), originally published in Polish in 1936, transl. into English by Cohen and Schnelle (ed.) (1986): 84.
- 46.
Ludwik Fleck (2011), originally published in Polish in 1936, transl. into English by Cohen and Schnelle (ed.) (1986): 84f.
- 47.
See Kuhn’s foreword to Fleck (1935/79), a source text which he had allegedly “simply forgotten” to mention in his famous book about the “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” in 1961. Compare the literature listed in Oberheim (2018) on this hotly disputed issue.
- 48.
One Ph.D. prize from the Hamburger Wissenschaftliche Stiftung, and a Heinz Maier-Leibnitz Förderpreis from the German Federal Ministry of Science and Education. Book reviews appeared in Isis 84,2 (1993): 404–5, British Journal for the History of Science 28 (1995): 482–3, Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 1996: 83–4, Gesnerus 49 (1992): 99–101, Annals of Science 49 (1992): 577–583, Foundations of Physics 22,12 (1992): 1517–1520, Physik in unserer Zeit 23,4: 183, Physikalische Blätter 48,2 (1992): 123–4, and in the Berlin newspaper: Der Morgen, April 4, 1991: 21.
- 49.
See the essay review by Ferrari (1992).
- 50.
- 51.
The introduction to Massimi and McCoy (2019) offers a good survey of the movement in its “kaleidoscopic” character and a clear positioning of “scientific perspectivism” with respect to pragmatism, pluralism and realism.
- 52.
On the genesis and dynamics of antisemitic arguments against Einstein and his theories, as well as against “Jewishly tainted” (allegedly “jüdisch versippte”) defenders of Einstein, see Hentschel (1990a, b, c): 131–149, Hentschel (ed.) (1996) and Wazeck (2014) as well as further primary and secondary sources cited there.
- 53.
This list uses the brief summary which Brown (2009, 214) gave for Giere’s “scientific perspectivism” and extends it to philosophical interpretations which also yield such “perspectives” of the theory under interpretation.
- 54.
Massimi and McCoy (2019): 3.
- 55.
- 56.
In traditional hermeneutics, this leads to the idea of the “hermeneutical circle”; cf. George (2020) sect. 1.3.and further references given there.
- 57.
On Adler’s failed efforts at philosophical interpretation and physical critique of relativity theory see here note 26; on Einstein’s refusal to take up discussion with Bergson, cf. Canales (2005), (2015). On Einstein’s behalf, the former general and Meyersonian André Metz then heavily criticized Bergson in France and claimed him guilty of having transformed a beautiful child into a monster.” In the Spanish-speaking world, Masriera Rubio, a professor of physical chemistry in Barcelona, became a defender of Einstein
- 58.
Einstein an Solovine, May 20, 1923, in Solovine 1956: “Bergson hat in seinem Buch schwere Böcke geschossen. Möge Gott ihm vergeben.”
- 59.
See, e.g., Einstein (1949) for reflective considerations about this lifelong goal which he thought to have met in relativity theory but never achieved in quantum theory or unified field theory.
- 60.
For statistics on the reception of relativity theory see Eisenstaedt (1989), Hentschel (1990a, b, c): 67–73, Goenner (1992), (2017) and Hu (2005). For comparative studies of the reception in various national contexts, see here footnote 1. Faster media will maybe reduce, this time lag a bit in the future.
- 61.
This proximity of perspectivism to pragmatism and to a historized view of science which goes hand in hand with an integrated history and philosophy of science is emphasized in H. Chang’s contribution to Massimi and McCory (2019).
- 62.
E.g. in writings by Adolf Grünbaum, Michael Friedman or Chistopher Ray (to name just a few).
- 63.
Passmore (1966): 334. He admitted a few exceptions, though, including the Hegelian interpreter R.B. Haldane, as well as those interpreters who had transformed into philosophers after receiving a physical or mathematical training, such as Hans Reichenbach, Moritz Schlick, Alfred A. Robb or Alfred North Whitehead.
- 64.
Hence in Hentschel (1990a, b, c): 196–239, I distinguished between immunization and revision strategies within (Neo)Kantian interpretations of relativity, with Ernst Cassirer, Josef Winternitz and Karl Bollert as main examples of the revisionists whereas dozens of other Neo-Kantians excelled in immunization strategies, usually of the type: <Einstein speaks about physical time, whereas Kant and we Neo-Kantians deal with philosophical time, hence Einstein’s theory is not on the same plane of meaning as our discourse and either irrelevant or perfunctory for us.>.
- 65.
Gadamer (1960/85): 253: “Wer verstehen will, wird sich von vornherein nicht der Zufälligkeit der eigenen Vormeinung überlassen dürfen, um an der Meinung des Textes so konsequent und hartnäckig wie möglich vorbeizuhören – bis etwa diese unüberhörbar wird und das vermeintliche Verständnis umstößt. Wer einen Text verstehen will, ist vielmehr bereit, sich von ihm etwas sagen zu lassen.“ Additions in square brackets are made by the author.
- 66.
See footnote 5 above on Freire’s and Darrigol’s anthology of papers about these strongly differing interpretations.
- 67.
Schleiermacher in his Hermeneutik (1838), § 15 & 16, Werke Abt. I, vol. 7: 20f., quoted in Gadamer (1960/85): 173.
- 68.
References
Andersen, Hanne, and Nancy Nersessian. 2000. Nomic Concepts, Frames, and Conceptual Change. Philosophy of Science 67 (Suppl): 224–241.
Bergson, Henri. 1922. Durée et simultaneité: a propos de la théorie d’Einstein, Paris; reprint in Bergson: Mélanges, 1972: 58–244.
———. 1924. Les temps fictifs et le temps reel. Revue de philosophie, 24, 3, reprint in Mélanges (1972), 1432–1449; in engl. transl: Fictitious times and real time, in Bergson and the Evolution of Physics 1969: 165–186.
———. 1972. Mélanges. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Biezunski, Michel. 1992. Einstein à Paris. Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.
Brown, Matthew J. 2009. Models and Perspectives on Stage: Remarks on Giere’s scieNtific Perspectivism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 213–220.
Canales, Jimena. 2005. Einstein, Bergson, and the Experiment That Failed: Intellectual Cooperation at the League of Nations. Modern Language Notes 120 (5): 1168–1191.
———. 2015. The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cohen, Robert, and Thomas Schnelle, eds. 1986. Cognition and Fact. Materials on Ludwik Fleck. Dordrecht: Reidel (= Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 87).
Collins, Randall. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies. A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
CPAE. 1998. Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Princeton, PUP, esp. vol. 8A, ed. Robert Schulmann et al.
Danneberg, Lutz, Andreas Kamlah, and Lothar Schäfer, eds. 1994. Hans Reichenbach und die Berliner Gruppe. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Dubislav, Walter. 1929. Joseph Petzoldt in memoriam. Annalen der Philosophie und philosophischen Kritik 8: 289–295.
Einstein, Albert. 1916. Nachruf auf Ernst Mach. Physikalische Zeitschrift 17: 161–164.
———. 1949. Autobiographical Notes. In Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, ed. P. Schilpp, 3–95. La Salle: Open Court.
Eisenstaedt, Jean. 1989. The Low Water Mark of General Relativity, 1925–1955. In Einstein and the History of General Relativity, ed. D. Howard and John Stachel, 277–292. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Ferrari, Massimo. 1992. Interpretazioni di Einstein a confronto (= essay review of Hentschel 1990a). Rivista di Filosofia 78 (3): 473–486.
Feyerabend, Paul. 1962. Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism. In Scientific Explanation, Space and Time, ed. H. Feigl and G. Maxwell, 28–97. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
Fleck, Ludwik. 1935/80. Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv (Basel: Schwabe 1935), ed. Lothar Schäfer & Thomas Schnelle. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1980.
———. 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (ed. T. J. Trenn and R. K. Merton, foreword by Thomas Kuhn), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 2011. In Denkstile und Tatsachen. Gesammelte Schriften und Zeugnisse, ed. Sylvia Werner and Claus Zittel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1960/85. Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik, Tübingen: Mohr 1960, Reprinted w. Commentary & Index in Gesammelte Werke, Tübingen: Mohr 1985, vols. 1–2, in Engl. trans. by Joel Weinsheimer & Donald G. Marshall: Truth and Method, New York: Seabury Press 1975, 2nd rev. ed., New York, Continuum, 2004.
———. 1974. Hermeneutik. Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie 3: 1061–1073.
———. 1995. Hermeneutik im Rückblick. Tübingen: Mohr (= Gesammelte Werke Band 10.
George, Theodore. 2020. Hermeneutics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, online available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/
Giere, Ronald. 2000. The Perspectival Nature of Scientific Observation. Unpubl. paper delivered at PSA 2000, November 4.
———. 2006. Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 2009. Scientific Perspectivism: Behind the Stage Door. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 221–223.
———. 2016. Feyerabend’s Perspectivism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A57: 137–141.
Glick, Thomas F., ed. 1987. The Comparative Reception of Relativity. Reidel: Dordrecht.
Goenner, Hubert. 1992. The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Germany as Reflected by Books Published Between 1908 and 1945. In Einstein Studies 3, ed. J. Eisenstaedt and A.J. Kox, 15–38. Basel: Birkhäuser.
———. 2017. A Golden Age of General Relativity? Some Remarks on the History of General Relativity. General Relativity and Gravitation 49 (42).
Goldberg, Stanley. 1984. Understanding Relativity. Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Graham, Loren R. 1972. Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union. New York: Knopf.
Graßhoff, Gerd, ed. 2006. Wittgenstein’s World of Mechanics: Including Transcriptions of Lectures by Wittgenstein’s Teacher Joseph Petzoldt and Related Texts on Mechanics. Vienna: Springer.
Hentschel, Klaus. 1990a. Interpretationen und Fehlinterpretationen der Relativitätstheorie Albert Einsteins durch seine Zeitgenossen. Basel: Birkhäuser.
———. 1990b. Philosophical Interpretations of Relativity Theory 1910–1930. PSA 1990, part 2, 169–179.
———. 1990c. Die Korrespondenz Petzoldt–Reichenbach: Zur Entwicklung der wissenschaftlichen Philosophie in Berlin. Berlin: Sigma, 1990c (= Berliner Beiträge zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften u. der Technik, 12).
———, ed. 1996. Physics and National Socialism. An Anthology of Primary Sources. Basel: Birkhäuser.
———. 2006. Einstein und seine Exegeten: Inanspruchnahme und Deformation der Relativitätstheorie durch ihre frühen Verteidiger. In Kultur moderner Wissenschaft am Beispiel Albert Einstein, ed. Philipp W. Balsiger and Rudolf Kötter, 69–95. Heidelberg: Winter.
———. 2019. Constructive Misinterpretation of Newton by Mach and Einstein. In The Reception of Isaac Newton in Europe, ed. Scott Mandelbrote and Helmut Pulte, vol. 3. chap. 44, 931–940 & 979–980.
———. 2020. Weighing Light and Pondering Historiographies. Annals of Science 77: 383–387.
Holton, Gerald. 1968. Mach, Einstein, and the Search for Reality. Daedalus 97 (2): 636–673.
Hu, Danian. 2005. China and Albert Einstein: The Reception of the Physicist and His Theory in China, 1917–1979. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Krauss, Chiara Russo. 2019. Wundt, Avenarius, and Scientific Psychology. A Debate at the Turn of the Twentieth Century. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
———. 2021. Joseph Petzoldt and the systematization of Ernst Mach's philosophy. Geltung 1:1–43.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962/70. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. (2nd enlarged ed. 1970).
———. 2000. In The Road Since Structure, ed. J. Conant and J. Haugeland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mach, Ernst. 1872. Die Geschichte und die Wurzel des Satzes von der Erhaltung der Arbeit.Prag: Calve.
Maiocchi, Roberto. 1985. Einstein in Italia. La Scienza e la filosofia iraliane di fronte alla teoria della relatività. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Massimi, Michaela. 2012. Scientific Perspectivism and Its Foes. Philosophica 84: 25–52.
———. 2018a. Perspectival Modeling. Philosophy of Science 85: 335–359.
———. 2018b. Four Kinds of Perspectival Truth. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 96 (2): 342–359.
Massimi, Michaela, and Casey M. McCoy, eds. 2019. Understanding Perspectivism: Scientific Challenges and Methodological Prospects. London: Routledge.
Oberheim, Eric. 2018. The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, freely available online at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incommensurability/
Pais, Abraham. 1982. Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. New York: Oxford University Press.
Passmore, John. 1966. A Hundred Years of Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Petzoldt, Joseph. 1908. Über die Gebiete absoluter und relativer Bewegung. Annalen der Naturphilosophie 7: 29–62.
———. 1912. Die Relativitätstheorie im erkenntnistheoretischen Zusammenhange des relativistischen Positivismus. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 14: 1055–1064.
———. 1920. Kausalität und Relativitätstheorie. Zeitschrift für Physik 1: 467–474.
———. 1921. Das Verhältnis der Machschen Gedankenwelt zur Relativitätstheorie. Anhang zur 8. Auflage yon Ernst Mach: Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung, historisch-kritisch dargestellt, 490–517. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Pyenson, Lewis. 1985. The Young Einstein. Bristol: Hilger.
Ray, Christopher. 1987. The Evolution of Relativity. Bristol/Philadelphia: Hilger.
Rueger, Alexander. 2020. Some Perspective on Perspectivism = Essay Review of Michela Massimi and Casey D. McCoy (eds): Understanding perspectivism. Scientific Challenges and Methodological Prospects (New York 2020). Metascience 29: 193–196.
Ryckman, Thomas. 2005. The Reign of Relativity. Philosophy in Physics 1915–1925. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sánchez-Ron, J.M. 2012. The Early Reception of Einstein’s Relativity among British Philosophers. In Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, ed. C. Lehner, J. Renn, and M. Schemmel, 73–116. Reidel.
Solovine, Maurice, ed. 1956. Albert Einstein – Lettres à Maurice Solovine. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
Speziali, Pierre, ed. 1972. Albert Einstein-Michele Besso: Correspondence, 1903–1955. Paris: Hermann.
Van Fraassen, Bas C. 2008. Scientific Representation. Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: OUP.
Wazeck, Milena. 2014. Einstein’s Opponents: The Public Controversy about the Theory of Relativity in the 1920s. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wimsatt, William C. 2007. Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings. Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wolters, Gereon. 2012. Mach and Einstein, or, Clearing Troubled Waters in the History of Science. In Einstein and the Changing World Views of Physics, 37–57. New York: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hentschel, K. (2023). (Mis-)Interpretations of the Theory of Relativity – Considerations on How They Arise and How to Analyze Them. In: Russo Krauss, C., Laino, L. (eds) Philosophers and Einstein's Relativity. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 342. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36498-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36498-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-36497-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-36498-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)