Brown have driven a prominent recent debate concerning the direction of an alleged arrow of explanation between Minkowski spacetime and Lorentz invariance of dynamical laws in special relativity. In this article, I critically assess this controversy with the aim of clarifying the explanatory foundations of the theory. First, I show that two assumptions shared by the parties-that the dispute is independent of issues concerning spacetime ontology, and that there is an urgent need for a constructive interpretation of special relativity-are problematic and negatively affect the debate. Second, I argue that the whole discussion relies on a misleading conception of the link between Minkowski spacetime structure and Lorentz invariance, a misconception that in turn sheds more shadows than light on our understanding of the explanatory nature and power of Einstein's theory. I state that the arrow connecting Lorentz invariance and Minkowski spacetime is not explanatory and unidirectional, but analytic and bidirectional, and that this analytic arrow grounds the chronogeometric explanations of physical phenomena that special relativity offers.

No abstract

It is a widespread belief that the Kochen-Specker theorem imposes a contextuality constraint on the ontology of beables in quantum hidden variables theories. On the other hand, after Bell's influential critique, the importance of von Neumann's wrongly called 'impossibility proof' has been severely questioned. However, Max Jammer, Jeffrey Bub and Dennis Dieks have proposed insightful reassessments of von Neumann's theorem: what it really shows is that hidden variable theories cannot represent their beables by means of Hermitian operators in Hilbert space. Hereby I show that i) the very same constraint can be derived from Gleason's theorem, and that ii) if we consider the import of von Neumann's and Gleason's theorems, the relevance of the Kochen-Specker theorem for hidden variables theories gets substantially weakened: it does not force them to be contextual in any interesting sense of the term.

ABSTRACT. In this paper I argue that the case of Einstein's special relativity vs. Hendrik Lorentz's ether theory can be decided in terms of empirical evidence, in spite of the predictive equivalence between the theories. In the historical and philosophical literature this case has been typically addressed focusing on non-empirical features (non-empirical virtues in special relativity and/or non-empirical flaws in the ether theory). I claim that non-empirical features are not enough to provide a fully objective and uniquely determined choice in instances of empirical equivalence. However, I argue that if we consider arguments proposed by Richard Boyd and by Larry Laudan and Jarret Leplin, a choice based on non-consequential empirical evidence favoring Einstein's theory can be made.