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.

该celu对孔参数的哲学文献是1987年由纸和Earman诺顿[“什么价格时空Substantivalism？孔的故事” Br。J.菲尔 科学]。本文有一个著名的背景故事，涉及Stachel和Norton在1913至15年间关于爱因斯坦思想的工作。霍尔论点与Earman在1970年代和1980年代对莱布尼兹的研究之间的联系鲜为人知，这又可以追溯到1975年霍华德·斯坦因提出的论点。引人注目的是，该线程源自错误的归因：Earman的论点归因于Stein，而这个论点最终变成了Hole的论点，不是Stein给出的论点。本文探讨了这一情节，并对随后的文学作品产生了一些影响。