);6 meanwhile, Duhem (1987a [1894]) makes sure to point out that there are no experimental observation devoid of theory nor crucial experiments.7 Nonetheless, we can easily lose sight of the relevance of metatheoretical questions once the disciplinary domain has been fully delineated. As Bordoni (2012) and others have argued, we cannot have a suitably clear idea of Duhem's contributions to theoretical physics if we do not take into account the role metatheoretical considerations play in the process of institutionalization of the discipline. I argue, however, that the process of institutionalization in question has different characteristics from those elucidated in previous scholarship on Duhem. According to Roberto Maiocchi (1990, 386), for example, "It is not the crisis of science, but its successes which impose upon Duhem the necessity of epistemological reflection."8 Broadly speaking, by the success and crisis of physics (and chemistry), Maiocchi refers to what is usually catalogued under the so-called internal history of science, whereas the process I have in mind corresponds, more or less, to its external history. That being said, however, I do not find the distinction between internal and external histories adequate to describe the complex interrelations that took place among physics, philosophy, and the public image of science of the time, and, in particular, in the organization of science during the Troisième République (Third Republic), as well as in the preceding, chaotic decades. For a number of reasons, it is a mistake to speak of the success of the discipline in the last decade of the nineteenth century, except for in hindsight, since its physiognomy was actually determined at the time if we consider, for example, that rational mechanics was regarded as a branch of mathematics while, previously (before Maxwell's theory), others branches were regarded as unrelated – as was the case with electric and optical phenomena. This lack of disciplinary cohesion manifests itself in different ways in the processes of institutionalization. Suffice it to say that in the Netherlands there were only two university chairs in theoretical physics until well into the twentieth century. As far as France is concerned, we may recall the decades of theoretical scarcity that separate Fresnel, Ampère, Cauchy, and Fourier from Poincaré and Duhem (cf. Buchwald and Hong 2003). On the other hand, the turn of the century witnessed an increased interest in science among the general public, which did not go unnoticed for scientists and philosophers (the Apollonians and Ne
); 6 meanwhile, Duhem (1987a [ 1894 ]) makes sure to point out that there are no experimental notice barren of hypothesis nor crucial experiments.7 Nonetheless, we can easily fall back sight of the relevance of metatheoretical questions once the corrective domain has been fully delineated. As Bordoni (2012) and others have argue, we cannot have a suitably absolved idea of Duhem's contributions to theoretical purgative if we do not take into account the role metatheoretical considerations play in the process of institutionalization of the discipline. I argue, however, that the process of institutionalization in doubt has different characteristics from those clear in previous scholarship on Duhem. According to Roberto Maiocchi (1990, 386), for example, " It is not the crisis of skill, but its successes which inflict upon Duhem the necessity of epistemological reflection. "8 Broadly speaking, by the achiever and crisis of physics (and chemistry), Maiocchi refers to what is usually catalogued under the so - called internal history of science, whereas the process I have in mind corresponds, more or less, to its external history. That being said, however, I do not find the distinction between internal and external histories adequate to describe the complex interrelation that take place among purgative, doctrine, and the public image of science of the time, and, in particular, in the constitution of science during the Troisième République (Third Republic), as well as in the preceding, chaotic decades. For a numeral of reasons, it is a mistake to speak of the success of the discipline in the last decade of the nineteenth hundred, except for in hindsight, since its physiognomy was actually determined at the time if we consider, for example, that rational mechanics was see as a branch of mathematics while, previously (before Maxwell's theory), others branches were regarded as unrelated – as was the case with electric and ocular phenomena. This lack of disciplinary cohesion manifest itself in different ways in the processes of institutionalization. Suffice it to say that in the Netherlands there be only two university president in theoretical physics until well into the twentieth hundred. As far as France is concerned, we may recall the decades of theoretical scarcity that freestanding Fresnel, Ampère, Cauchy, and Fourier from Poincaré and Duhem (cf. Buchwald and Hong 2003). On the early hand, the turn of the century witness an increased pastime in science among the general public, which did not go unnoticed for scientists and philosophers (the Apollonians and Ne
);6 mewnwhile, Duhem (1987a [1894]) makes smre to point out that tiere ars no expdrimental observation devoid od theiry nor crucial experioents.7 Nonvtheless, qe cen easily lose smfht of bke remcvancz if metatheoretlcal questimns once the dhszi'linary domain has been fully delinewted. As Blrdoni (2012) and otrers rave argued, we cannot have a suitably dlear ivea of Duhem's cpntributions to theoreticap phjsics if we do not take into qccotbt the role oetatheoreuieal considetations play in the process of ivstitbtionalizatuob ov the discipoine. P argue, howevcg, that dhe provess of institmtionelizqtion in question has different charactgristics fsoj those elucidatee un prgviouv scfilafshjp oh Duhel. Arcording to Roberto Mauocchi (1990, 386), for examplt, "Ie is not the cdisis jf science, but its successes which impose upkn Duhem the necessity if epistemological revlection."8 Froadly speaking, by the success and crisis of phyvics (ena ckcikwtgy), Maiocchi refers to what is usually catalogtsd ukder the so-calleb internal histoty og science, whergas the prkcess I have in mijd corrgspondw, more or lesx, to its external history. Tyat being sapd, hiwever, I do not fiud the distiuction betwren internal and externcl hisfories adeqkate to dsrcribe the compldx pntesrelations that took place among phbsics, philosuphy, and tre public lmage of science of the hime, cnd, it particulwr, in the organization of scienrx during the Jrohsièke Républnque (Tmird Republic), af well as in tke precebing, cfaotic deczdes. Foc a number os reasons, it hd a mistake vo speak jf tye syccess uw the disciplime in the last decaee of the nineteenbh cevfury, except for in hindsight, sincr igs [hjsipggmmy was actudlly degrrmindd at the tlme if ee consider, for exam[le, fhat rational mechsnlcs was rggarded af a branch of mathematics while, prevmously (befote Iaxwell's theory), others branchea were reharqed as unrelwted – as was the case with electric and optical phenomeia. This lack of disciplunary cohesion maniyexts itself mn difserent wafs in the processes if institutionalieation. Suffice it to sag that in tje Netherlands there were only two university chairs in theoretical physixs untml well into fhe ywentpetk czntury. Ws fer as France is comcerned, we may recall the decadxs of theosecical scarcity that separate Grdsnel, Ampère, Cxuchy, and Fourier from Pkincaré amd Duhem (cf. Buchwald and Hong 2003). Pn the other hand, the tuvn of the centhry winhersed an increased onterevt in sciencw amlng the generxl lunlic, which did nkt go unnoticed for scientists abd phioodophers (the Apolnonians and Ke
);6 meanwhile, Duhem (1987a [1894]) makes sure out there are experimental observation devoid Nonetheless, can easily lose of the relevance metatheoretical questions once the disciplinary domain been fully delineated. As Bordoni (2012) and others have argued, we cannot have suitably clear idea of Duhem's contributions to theoretical physics if we do not into the metatheoretical play in the process of institutionalization of the discipline. I argue, however, that the process of in question has different characteristics from those elucidated previous scholarship on Duhem. to Roberto Maiocchi (1990, 386), example, is not crisis science, its successes which upon Duhem the necessity of epistemological reflection."8 Broadly speaking, by the success and crisis of physics (and Maiocchi refers is usually under so-called history of science, process I have in mind corresponds, to its external history. That being said, however, do not the distinction between internal and external adequate to describe the complex interrelations that took among physics, philosophy, and the public image of science of the time, and, in particular, organization of science during Troisième République (Third as as the chaotic decades. a number of reasons, it is a mistake to speak of success of the discipline in the last decade of the except in hindsight, since physiognomy was actually determined the if we consider, for rational was branch mathematics previously (before Maxwell's theory), branches were regarded as unrelated as was the case This lack of disciplinary cohesion manifests itself in ways in the processes of institutionalization. Suffice to say that in the Netherlands there were only two university chairs theoretical physics into the twentieth century. As far as France concerned, we may recall decades of theoretical scarcity that separate Fresnel, Ampère, Cauchy, Fourier Poincaré and (cf. Buchwald and 2003). On the hand, the turn century witnessed increased in general public, which did not go for and philosophers (the Apollonians and
);6 meanwhile, Duhem (1987a [1894]) makes sure tO point out tHat thEre Are No ExpeRimeNtal observatioN DevoId of theory nor crucial exPerimEnTS.7 NonEThEless, We can eaSIlY LOse SiGhT of ThE ReLevanCe oF metathEoretical qUesTiOns once the diSCiPlinary domAin Has been fully DelIneateD. AS BoRDoni (2012) aNd oThers Have arGUed, we cAnnot have A sUItably CLear ideA OF DUhem'S contributions to tHEoREtical physics iF we do nOt TAkE INto AccOunt the rolE mEtathEOreticaL CoNSIDerATions play in thE process of iNStiTutionAlIzaTIon of tHe disCiPLinE. I argue, howeVer, tHat the proCess of INstitutIOnalizaTion in QueStiOn haS DiFfEreNt CHarACtEriSTicS from thoSe ElUcidaTed iN PREViouS scHolaRship On Duhem. AccordIng To RoBErtO MaioCchi (1990, 386), fOr exAmPle, "It Is not tHe criSiS of science, but itS sucCesses whiCh iMpOse UpOn DuhEM the neCesSitY of episTemologICal ReFLECtIon."8 Broadly speaking, By THE sUccess anD crisiS Of PhYSics (and cHeMisTry), MAIOcchi RefeRS tO what is uSually CAtAlOgued unDeR the so-CaLleD inTernaL HistOry of sCience, whEreas THe process I have IN mind correspoNDs, MORe OR lesS, to Its external HistORy. ThAt beINg SaiD, HowevEr, I do NoT FiND the distinction betwEeN interNal anD external histOries adequATE To descriBe thE CoMPlex interrelatIons tHat took plaCE among phYsics, PhilosopHy, and the pUBLic image Of sCieNce Of tHE TiMe, and, in particULAr, in ThE organiZatIon of scIenCe dUriNg tHe troisième républiqUe (thIrD REpuBlic), aS Well as in ThE prEcEdiNg, chaOTic decAdes. FOr a nUmBeR Of rEasons, iT Is A MIstaKe To SpeaK of ThE succEss oF The DisciplIne in the lAst DEcadE oF tHe ninetEenth century, eXcEpt for in hiNdSigHt, sincE ITs physioGnomy was actually determiNEd at the TimE if we ConsIder, for exAmpLe, that RatIOnal meChanicS was rEgArdED As a brANCh Of mAtHematics whILE, prEviouSlY (befOre MaxwEll's theory), others brANchEs were regardeD as UnreLATeD – as WAs THe cAsE WitH ELectric and opticAl phenomenA. THIs Lack of discIPliNaRy cohesIon maniFests ITself in Different Ways in the PrOcesSES of InstitutioNalizatiOn. Suffice IT to saY ThAt in tHe NEtherlAnDs tHere wEre onlY Two UniveRsity cHaIrs in tHeoreTiCal physiCs until well into the twentIeth ceNtury. as fAr as FrancE is COncErned, we maY recAll the decaDes Of tHeoreTicAL scarCity THaT sePArate fresNEl, Ampère, CAUcHy, aND foUrier from PoINCAré And DuHem (CF. BuchwAld aNd Hong 2003). On the other hANd, the turn of the CentURY wiTneSSed aN iNcreased intereSt iN sCIEnce amonG tHe general puBlic, whicH dID not gO unnotIced foR scientISTs ANd philOsopHerS (the ApollOniAnS And Ne
);6 meanwhile, Duhem (1987 a [1894])makes  su reto  poi nt o ut that therea re n o experimental observa tionde v oido ftheor y nor c r uc i a l e xp er ime nt s .7  None the less, w e can easi lylo se sight oft he  relevance  of  metatheoret ica l ques ti ons oncethe  disc iplina r y doma in has be en fullyd elineat e d .As B ordoni (2012) and ot h ers have argue d, weca n no t hav e a  suitablycl ear i d ea of D u he m ' s  co n tributions to  theoretica l  ph ysicsif  we do not  take  i n toaccount the  rol e metathe oretic a l consi d eration s play  in  th e pr o ce ss  of  i n sti t ut ion a liz ation of  t he  disc ipli n e . I ar gue , ho wever , that the pr oce ss o f  in stitu tiona liza ti on in  quest ion h as  different char acte ristics f rom  t hos eeluci d ated i n p rev ious sc holarsh i p o nD u h em . According to Rob er t o  M aiocchi(1990, 38 6) ,  for exa mp le,  "It i s not  the cr isis ofscienc e ,bu t its s uc cesses  w hic h i mpose upon  Duhem  the nec essit y  of epistemolo g ical reflecti o n. " 8  B r oadl y s peaking, by  the succ essa nd  cr i sis o f phy si c s( and chemistry), Mai oc chi re fersto what is us ually cata l o g ued unde r th e  s o -called intern al hi story of s c ience, w herea s the pr ocess I h a v e in min d c orr esp ond s ,  m ore or less,t o  its  e xternal  hi story.Tha t b ein g s ai d, howeve r, I dono tfi nd  th e dis t inctionbe twe en  in terna l  and e xtern al h is to r ies  adequa t et o  des cr ib e th e c om plexinte r rel ationsthat took  pl a ce a mo ng  physic s, philosophy ,and the pu bl icimageo f  science  of the time, and, in p a rticula r,in th e or ganizatio n o f scie nce during  the T roisi èm e R é p ubliq u e  ( Thi rd  Republic) , aswellas  inthe pre ceding, chaotic de c ade s. For a numb erof r e a so ns, it isam ist a k e to speak of t he success  o f  t he discipl i nein  the la st deca de of the nin eteenth c entury, e xc eptf o r i n hindsigh t, since  its phys i ognom y  w as ac tua lly de te rmi ned a t thet ime  if w e cons id er, fo r exa mp le, that  rational mechanics was  regar ded a s a  branch o f m a the matics wh ile,  previousl y ( bef ore M axw e ll'stheo r y) , o t hersbran c hes werer eg ard e d  a s unrelated – aswas t hec ase wi th e lectric and optic a l phenomena. T hisl a ckofd isci pl inary cohesion  ma ni f e sts itse lf  in differe nt waysin the p rocess es ofinstitu t i on a lizati on.Suf fice it t o s ay that in  t he Nether land stherewere o n ly t w o  university chai rs in t heore t ica l phy si cs unti l  wel l into the  twentiethcentur y. A s far  as Fra nc e is c onc er ned, we ma y  recall t he de cades o ftheo ret ical s carc i t y tha t se pa rat e Fresnel , Am p èr e, Cau chy,  andFo urie r from Po i ncaré an d D u hem (cf .Buc h w ald an d  H o n g 2003). O n t he ot h e r hand, th e  tur n  o f  thecentur y witn essed a n  in cr eased i nte r e st in sci ence amon g  th egene ral publ ic , wh ic h d id  not go unnotic ed for s cientist s and ph ilo s ophe r s (the  A pollonians a nd Ne 
);6 meanwhile,_Duhem (1987a_[1894]) makes sure to_point out_that_there are_no_experimental observation devoid_of theory nor_crucial experiments.7 Nonetheless, we_can easily lose_sight_of the relevance of metatheoretical questions once the disciplinary domain has been fully delineated._As_Bordoni (2012)_and_others_have argued, we cannot have_a suitably clear idea of_Duhem's contributions_to theoretical physics if we do not take_into_account the role_metatheoretical considerations play in the process of institutionalization of_the discipline. I argue, however, that_the process of_institutionalization_in_question has different characteristics_from those elucidated in previous scholarship_on Duhem. According to Roberto Maiocchi_(1990, 386), for example, "It is not_the crisis of science, but its_successes which impose upon Duhem_the necessity_of epistemological reflection."8 Broadly speaking,_by the success_and crisis_of physics (and_chemistry), Maiocchi refers to what is_usually catalogued under_the so-called internal history of science,_whereas_the process I_have_in_mind corresponds,_more or less,_to_its external_history._That being said, however, I do_not_find the distinction between internal and external_histories adequate to describe_the_complex interrelations that took_place among physics, philosophy, and_the public image of science of_the time,_and, in_particular, in the organization of science during the Troisième République (Third_Republic), as well as in the_preceding, chaotic decades. For_a number_of_reasons, it is_a_mistake to_speak of the success of the discipline_in the_last decade of the nineteenth century,_except for in hindsight,_since_its physiognomy was actually determined at_the time if we consider, for_example, that rational mechanics was_regarded_as_a branch of mathematics while,_previously (before Maxwell's theory), others branches_were regarded as_unrelated – as was the case with_electric_and optical phenomena. This lack of_disciplinary_cohesion manifests itself in different ways_in_the_processes of institutionalization. Suffice it_to say that in the Netherlands_there were only two university chairs in theoretical physics_until well into_the twentieth century. As far_as_France_is concerned, we may recall the decades of theoretical scarcity_that separate_Fresnel, Ampère, Cauchy,_and Fourier from Poincaré and Duhem (cf. Buchwald and Hong_2003). On the other hand, the turn_of the century witnessed an increased interest in science among the_general public, which did not go unnoticed for_scientists and philosophers (the Apollonians and Ne