English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsen'sself-styled "polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper." Lesspolemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bell's1964 theorem is different from Bell's 1976 theorem, and that the former doesnot include Bell's one-paragraph heuristic presentation of the EPR argument ---Norsen has made significant concessions. In his response, Norsen admits that"Bell's recapitulation of the EPR argument in [the relevant] paragraph leavessomething to be desired," that it "disappoints" and is "problematic". Moreover,Norsen makes other statements that imply, on the face of it, that he shouldhave no objections to the title of my recent paper ("The Two Bell's Theorems ofJohn Bell"). My principle aim in writing that paper was to try to bridge thegap between two interpretational camps, whom I call 'operationalists' and'realists', by pointing out that they use the phrase "Bell's theorem" to meandifferent things: his 1964 theorem (assuming locality and determinism) and his1976 theorem (assuming local causality), respectively. Thus, it is hearteningthat at least one person from one side has taken one step on my bridge. Thatsaid, there are several issues of contention with Norsen, which we (the twoauthors) address after discussing the extent of our agreement with Norsen. Themost significant issues are: the indefiniteness of the word 'locality' prior to1964; and the assumptions Einstein made in the paper quoted by Bell in 1964 andtheir relation to Bell's theorem.

Reply to Norsen's paper "Are there really two different Bell's theorems?"