Samuel C. Fletcher

In this two-part essay, we distinguish several senses in which general relativity has been regarded as "locally special relativistic". In Part 1, we focused on senses in which a relativistic spacetime may be said to be "locally (approximately) Minkowskian". Here, in Part 2, we consider what it might mean to say that a matter theory is "locally special relativisitc". We isolate and evaluate three criteria in the literature and show that they are incompatible: matter theories satisfying one will generally violate others. We then consider what would happen if any of those criteria failed for a given theory.

In this two-part essay, we distinguish several senses in which general relativity has been regarded as "locally special relativistic". Here, in Part 1, we focus on senses in which a relativistic spacetime has been said to be "locally (approximately) Minkowskian". After critiquing several proposals in the literature, we present a result capturing a substantive sense in which every relativistic spacetime is locally approximately Minkowskian. We then show that Minkowski spacetime is not distinguished in this result: every relativistic spacetime is locally approximately every other spacetime in the same sense. In Part 2, we will consider "locally specially relativistic" matter theories.

The role or function of experimental and observational replication within empirical science has implications for how replication should be measured. Broadly, there seems to be consensus that replication’s central goal is to confirm or vouchsafe the reliability of scientific findings. I argue that if this consensus is correct, then most of the measures of replication used in the scientific literature are actually poor indicators of this reliability or confirmation. Only meta-analytic measures of replication align functionally with the goals of replication. I conclude by addressing some objections to meta-analysis.