（厄尔曼-诺顿）霍尔论证的一些哲学史前史
Some Philosophical Prehistory of the (Earman-Norton) Hole Argument
摘要：
1987年Earman \& Norton的论文《时空实体论的代价是什么？《洞的故事》（The Hole Story）J.菲尔。Sci.]。本文有一个著名的背景故事，关于工作的Stachel和诺顿对爱因斯坦的思想在1913年至1915年。不太为人所知的是洞的论点和厄曼在20世纪70年代和80年代对莱布尼茨的研究之间的联系，这反过来又可以追溯到霍华德·斯坦在1975年首次提出的论点。值得注意的是，这条线索起源于一个错误的归因：厄曼归因于斯坦的论点，最终演变成了洞的论点，而不是斯坦给出的论点。本文探讨了这一事件，并提出了一些思考，它是如何对随后的文学。
英文摘要：
The celu of the philosophical literature on the hole argument is the 1987 paper by Earman \& Norton ["What Price Space-time Substantivalism? The Hole Story" Br. J. Phil. Sci.]. This paper has a well-known back-story, concerning work by Stachel and Norton on Einstein's thinking in the years 1913-15. Less well-known is a connection between the hole argument and Earman's work on Leibniz in the 1970s and 1980s, which in turn can be traced to an argument first presented in 1975 by Howard Stein. Remarkably, this thread originates with a misattribution: the argument Earman attributes to Stein, which ultimately morphs into the hole argument, was not the argument Stein gave. The present paper explores this episode and presents some reflections on how it bears on the subsequent literature.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
