Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsen's
self-styled "polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper." Less
polemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bell's
1964 theorem is different from Bell's 1976 theorem, and that the former does
not 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 leaves
something to be desired," that it "disappoints" and is "problematic". Moreover,
Norsen makes other statements that imply, on the face of it, that he should
have no objections to the title of my recent paper ("The Two Bell's Theorems of
John Bell"). My principle aim in writing that paper was to try to bridge the
gap between two interpretational camps, whom I call 'operationalists' and
'realists', by pointing out that they use the phrase "Bell's theorem" to mean
different things: his 1964 theorem (assuming locality and determinism) and his
1976 theorem (assuming local causality), respectively. Thus, it is heartening
that at least one person from one side has taken one step on my bridge. That
said, there are several issues of contention with Norsen, which we (the two
authors) address after discussing the extent of our agreement with Norsen. The
most significant issues are: the indefiniteness of the word 'locality' prior to
1964; and the assumptions Einstein made in the paper quoted by Bell in 1964 and
their relation to Bell's theorem.Comment: 13 pages (arXiv version) in http://www.ijqf.org/archives/209
