Original sentence: It has sometimes been claimed (such as by Ignatowski in 1910 and many others in subsequent years) that special relativity follows from just the relativity postulate itself since Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant but not Galilean invariantGalilean transforms, something that was appreciated prior to 1905, but disputed by others.It is also well known that the assumptions of homogeneity, isotropy, memorylessness, reciprocity, and relativity are sufficient to imply the relationship between inertial coordinate systems up to a constant, but they are not sufficient to establish whether that constant is positive, negative, or zero
Edited sentence: However, the empirical basis of the postulates has never been in question.It has sometimes been claimed (such as by Ignatowski in 1910 and many others in subsequent years) that special relativity follows from just the relativity postulate itself, but this claim has been thoroughly investigated and is known to be incorrect, as is obvious from the fact that Galilean relativity (for example) also satisfies the relativity postulate, but it is not equivalent to special relativity -- although this ignores the invariance of Maxwell's equations under Lorentz transforms and their non-invariance under Galilean transforms, something that was appreciated prior to 1905.It is well known that the assumptions of homogeneity, isotropy, memorylessness, reciprocity, and relativity are sufficient to imply the relationship between inertial coordinate systems up to a constant, but they are not sufficient to establish whether that constant is positive, negative, or zero