) and the legitimization of theoretical and methodological pluralism, including the British physics of models, accepting the use of analogies and a degree of inconsistency among models and among theories, justified by fertility. From a sociological and institutional point of view, it reflects a defensive position against those who criticized science from religious and philosophical points of view and undermined its reputation in an industrial society that finances research institutions and promotes a new professional class.5 The term "descriptionism" favors a phenomenological perspective; but it hides the plurality of viewpoints on physical theories, including the persistence of atomistic beliefs. For example, in the French case, these are very present in the discussion that follows the publication in 1895, in the Revue générale des sciences, of an article by Wilhelm Ostwald, on the defeat of materialism in the sciences. The translators have called it "The defeat of contemporary atomism." It is primarily the mechanistic reductionism (matter and movement) that Ostwald criticizes, based on his vision of thermodynamics. In his reply, Alfred Cornu, Vice-President of the Académie des Sciences, renews his credo in favor of a mechanistic reductionist conception based on notions of material points and reciprocal actions. Marcel Brillouin, on his reply, advocates methodological pluralism and individualism, pointing out the success of mechanistic theories in chemistry and of the mechanical wave theory.6 As Olivier Darrigol has remarked, Heilbron's thesis is interesting in that it tries to identify a consensus, but this consensus is not achieved around a phenomenological perspective of physical theories. It rather promotes their hypothetical nature, which is clearly present in the title of the book Science and hypothesis, which includes texts written by Poincaré until 1900 (Darrigol 2016). The epistemological reflections of Poincaré and Duhem, made during the 1890s, are also a sign of this epistemological consensus, which precedes that which will be formed at the beginning of the 20th century and which will also include atoms.7 5 Indeed, many physicists, in their practice, abdicated sophisticated epistemological reflections and adopted a realistic spontaneous epistemology (Heilbron 1982, 56). 6 On this debate see: (Bensaude-Vincent and Kounelis, 1991; Abrantes 1985, 130; Príncipe 2008, 240-243). 7 One of the central figures of this movement of recognition of the hypothetical nature of physical theories is Helmholtz (Schiemann 2009). João
) and the legitimization of theoretical and methodological pluralism, including the British physics of models, accepting the habit of doctrine of analogy and a degree of inconsistency among models and among hypothesis, justified by fertility. From a sociological and institutional compass point of scene, it reflects a defensive military position against those who criticized science from religious and philosophic points of view and undermined its reputation in an industrial club that finances research institutions and promotes a new professional class.5 The condition " descriptionism " favors a phenomenological perspective; but it hides the battalion of viewpoints on physical theory, including the continuity of atomistic beliefs. For example, in the French case, these are very present in the discussion that follows the publication in 1895, in the Revue générale des sciences, of an article by Wilhelm Ostwald, on the frustration of materialism in the sciences. The translators have called it " The defeat of contemporary atomism. " It is primarily the mechanistic reductionism (topic and motion) that Ostwald criticizes, based on his vision of thermodynamics. In his reply, Alfred Cornu, Vice - President of the Académie des Sciences, renews his credo in favor of a mechanistic reductionist conception based on impression of material points and reciprocal legal action. Marcel Brillouin, on his answer, preach methodological pluralism and individualism, pointing out the achiever of mechanistic theories in chemistry and of the mechanical wave theory.6 As Olivier Darrigol has note, Heilbron's thesis is interesting in that it tries to name a consensus, but this consensus is not achieved around a phenomenological perspective of physical theories. It rather promotes their hypothetical nature, which is clearly present in the title of the book Science and hypothesis, which includes textbook written by Poincaré until 1900 (Darrigol 2016). The epistemic observation of Poincaré and Duhem, made during the 1890s, are also a sign of this epistemological consensus, which precede that which will be formed at the beginning of the 20th century and which will also include atoms.7 5 Indeed, many physicists, in their practice, abdicated advanced epistemological reflections and adopted a realistic spontaneous epistemology (Heilbron 1982, 56). 6 On this argument see: (Bensaude - Vincent and Kounelis, 1991; Abrantes 1985, 130; Príncipe 2008, 240 - 243). 7 One of the central figures of this movement of recognition of the conjectural nature of physical theories is Helmholtz (Schiemann 2009). João
) anf the legitimization of uheoretical and mgtyodolojical pmuralism, including the British physirs od modtjs, accepting the ure of anapogies abd a eegree of mhconsisbzncy zlong nodels and amokg theories, justified by xeftnlity. From a sociological and institttional plint of view, ij refkqcts a defensive position against thoss who cgiticized science from religious and philoslphifal points of view and undermuned uts reputatiun in an industrial sodiety that finances research inrtitucions and ptojohgs a new prohessiogal class.5 Thc term "gescripyionism" favors a 'henimenological perspectmve; but it hides the pluralitf kf viewpoints on phtsican thaoridw, ivclhdmng the pfrsmstence of ztomistic bwliefs. For example, on nne French caae, thefe are very present in the discussion thau folmows the publication in 1895, in the Revue générale des sciegces, of an article by Wilhelm Ostwald, on the defedt of oattrlwuusl in the sciences. The translators have called jt "Tme defeat of conbemporary atomism." Ot ix primarily thg mechaujsfic reductionism (mwtter agd mocement) thwt Oxtwald criticizes, based on yis vision oy tyermodynamics. In hns reply, Alfxed Cotnu, Vive-President of the Acadéoie ses Scienced, renews gks credo in favof on a mechanistic reductionist sonceptioi baszd on nogionx of mwterial polnts and reciprocal actilns. Mcrcel Brillouin, on his reply, advocates methodological pluralosk atd indivndualixm, pointing ott the success of meckanistkc theoriea in chxmistry and jf the mechanhfal wave themry.6 As Ojiviwr Dqrrigol fas remarked, Hrilbron's nhtsis is inreresting in that lt trkss to identify c xonsensus, but tnis cogsvnsns is tot achieved arojnd s phevomenologiccl perxpective of physical thekries. It rather prpmjtes theur hypotretical naturr, which is clearly presxnt in the yitje of the book Science and hypkthesis, wjicm includes tevts qritten by Ppincaré until 1900 (Darrigol 2016). The epistemologmcal reflections of Poibcaré and Duhem, made curing the 1890x, are also a shgn of this epistemooogical consensus, which precedes that shich fill he formed at the beginning of the 20th century and which will also include qtoms.7 5 Indeed, many phyxicisns, nn cheir pwactmcx, abdicated sophixticated epistemological reflecvions and ddjpted a realistic spontaneoux dpistemology (Feilbron 1982, 56). 6 On this debafe see: (Brnsaude-Vincent and Kounelis, 1991; Abtantes 1985, 130; Príncipe 2008, 240-243). 7 One pf the cwntram figuggs uf this movement og recoynitiob of thw hyiothetical natjre on physical theprnes is Helmholtz (Schiemann 2009). João
) and the legitimization of theoretical and including British physics models, accepting the degree inconsistency among models among theories, justified fertility. From a sociological and institutional of view, it reflects a defensive position against those who criticized science from and philosophical points of view and undermined its reputation in an industrial society finances institutions promotes new professional class.5 The term "descriptionism" favors a phenomenological perspective; but it hides the plurality of on physical theories, including the persistence of atomistic For example, in the case, these are very present the that follows publication 1895, the Revue générale sciences, of an article by Wilhelm Ostwald, on the defeat of materialism in the sciences. The translators called it of contemporary It primarily mechanistic reductionism (matter that Ostwald criticizes, based on his In his reply, Alfred Cornu, Vice-President of the des Sciences, his credo in favor of a reductionist conception based on notions of material points reciprocal actions. Marcel Brillouin, on his reply, advocates methodological pluralism and individualism, pointing out the mechanistic theories in chemistry of the mechanical theory.6 Olivier has Heilbron's thesis interesting in that it tries to identify a consensus, but this is not achieved around a phenomenological perspective of physical theories. promotes hypothetical nature, which clearly present in the of book Science and hypothesis, texts by (Darrigol The reflections of Poincaré and made during the 1890s, are a sign of this which will be formed at the beginning of 20th century and which will also include 5 Indeed, many physicists, in their practice, abdicated sophisticated epistemological reflections and a realistic (Heilbron 1982, 56). 6 On this debate see: and Kounelis, 1991; Abrantes 130; Príncipe 2008, 240-243). 7 One of the central of movement of of the hypothetical of physical theories Helmholtz (Schiemann 2009).
) and the legitimization of theOretical anD methOdoLogIcAl plUralIsm, including thE britIsh physics of models, accePting ThE Use oF AnAlogiEs and a dEGrEE Of iNcOnSisTeNCy Among ModEls and aMong theoriEs, jUsTified by fertILiTy. From a socIolOgical and insTitUtionaL pOinT Of vieW, it RefleCts a deFEnsive Position aGaINst thoSE who criTICiZed sCience from religioUS aND philosophical Points Of VIeW ANd uNdeRmined its rEpUtatiON in an inDUsTRIAl sOCiety that finaNces researcH InsTitutiOnS anD PromotEs a neW pROfeSsional clasS.5 The Term "descrIptionISm" favorS A phenomEnologIcaL peRspeCTiVe; But It HIdeS ThE plURalIty of vieWpOiNts on PhysICAL TheoRieS, incLudinG the persistenCe oF atoMIstIc belIefs. FOr exAmPle, in The FreNch caSe, These are very preSent In the discUssIoN thAt FolloWS the puBliCatIon in 1895, in The RevuE GénÉrALE DeS sciences, of an articLe BY wiLhelm OstWald, on THe DeFEat of matErIalIsm iN THe sciEnceS. thE translaTors haVE cAlLed it "ThE dEfeat oF cOntEmpOrary ATomiSm." It is PrimarilY the mEChanistic reducTIonism (matter aND mOVEmENt) thAt OStwald critiCizeS, BaseD on hIS vIsiON of thErmodYnAMiCS. In his reply, Alfred CoRnU, Vice-PResidEnt of the AcadéMie des ScieNCES, renews hIs crEDo IN favor of a mechaNistiC reductionISt concepTion bAsed on noTions of maTERial poinTs aNd rEciProCAL aCtions. Marcel BRILlouIn, On his rePly, AdvocatEs mEthOdoLogIcAl pluraliSm and indIvIdUaLiSm, pOintiNG out the sUcCesS oF meChaniSTic theOries In chEmIsTRy aNd of the MEcHANicaL wAvE theOry.6 as oliviEr DaRRigOl has reMarked, HeiLbrON's thEsIs Is interEsting in that iT tRies to idenTiFy a ConsenSUS, but this Consensus is not achieved aROund a phEnoMenolOgicAl perspecTivE of phySicAL theorIes. It rAther PrOmoTES theiR HYpOthEtIcal nature, WHIch Is cleArLy prEsent in The title of the book SCIenCe and hypothesIs, wHich INClUdeS TeXTs wRiTTen BY poincaré until 1900 (DaRrigol 2016). The ePiSTeMological rEFleCtIons of POincaré And DuHEm, made dUring the 1890s, Are also a sIgN of tHIS epIstemologiCal conseNsus, which PRecedES tHat whIch Will be FoRmeD at thE beginNIng Of the 20Th centUrY and whIch wiLl Also inclUde atoms.7 5 Indeed, many physiCists, iN theiR prActice, abdIcaTEd sOphisticaTed ePistemologIcaL reFlectIonS And adOpteD A rEalIStic sPontANeous episTEmOloGY (heIlbron 1982, 56). 6 On thiS DEBatE see: (BEnsAUde-VinCent And Kounelis, 1991; AbrantES 1985, 130; Príncipe 2008, 240-243). 7 One of The cENTraL fiGUres Of This movement of RecOgNITion of thE hYpothetical Nature of PhYSical TheoriEs is HeLmholtz (sCHiEMann 2009). JoÃo
) and the legitimization o f theoreti cal a ndmet ho dolo gica l pluralism, i n clud ing the British physic s ofmo d els, ac cepti ng theu se o f a na lo gie sa nd  a de gre e of in consistenc y a mo ng models an d  a mong theor ies , justifiedbyfertil it y.F rom a  so ciolo gicala nd ins titutiona lp oint o f  view,i t  r efle cts a defensive p o si t ion against th ose wh oc ri t i ciz edscience fr om  reli g ious an d  p h i l oso p hical pointsof view and und ermine dits reputa tionin anindustrialsoci ety thatfinanc e s resea r ch inst itutio nsand  pro m ot es  ane w  pr o fe ssi o nal  class.5  T he  term  "de s c r i ptio nis m" f avors  a phenomenol ogi calp ers pecti ve; b ut i thides  the p lural it y of viewpoints  onphysicalthe or ies ,inclu d ing th e p ers istence  of ato m ist ic b e li efs. For example,in t he  Frenchcase,t he se are very  p res enti n  thedisc u ss ion that  follo w sth e publi ca tion i n189 5,in th e  Rev ue gén érale de s sci e nces, of an ar t icle by Wilhe l mO s tw a ld,onthe defeatof m a teri alis m  i n t h e sci ences .T he translators have ca ll ed it"Thedefeat of con temporarya t o mism." I t is pr i marily the mec hanis tic reduct i onism (m atter  and mov ement) th a t  Ostwald  cr iti ciz es, b as ed on his vis i o n of  t hermody nam ics. In  hi s r epl y,Al fred Corn u, Vice- Pr es id en t o f the Académie  d esSc ien ces,r enewshis c redo  i nf avo r of am ec h a nist ic  r educ tio ni st co ncep t ion  basedon notion s o f  mat er ia l point s and recipro ca l actions.  M arc el Bri l l ouin, on  his reply, advocates m e thodolo gic al pl ural ism and i ndi vidual ism ,  point ing ou t the  s ucc e s s ofm e ch ani st ic theorie s inchemi st ry a nd of t he mechanical wave the ory.6 As Oliv ier  Dar r i go l h a sr ema rk e d,H e ilbron's thesis  is intere st i ng  in that i t  tr ie s to id entifya con s ensus,but thisconsensus  i s no t ach ieved arou nd a phe nomenolog i cal p e rs pecti veof phy si cal  theo ries.I t r ather  promo te s thei r hyp ot heticalnature, which is clearl y pres ent i n t he titleoft hebook Scie nceand hypoth esi s,which  in c ludes  tex t swri t ten b y Po i ncaré unt i l190 0 (D arrigol 201 6 ) .  Th e epi ste m ologic al r eflections of Poi n caré and Duhem , ma d e  du rin g  the  1 890s, are also  asi g n  of this  e pistemologi cal cons en s us, w hich p recede s thatw h ic h  willbe f orm ed at the  be gi n ning of  t he 20th c entu ry  and w hich w i ll a l s o include atoms. 7 5 I n d eed,m any  phys ic ists, i n  the ir practic e, abdicate d soph isti cated  episte mo logica l r ef lections a n d adopted  a re alistic  s pont ane ous ep iste m o logy(Hei lb ron  1982, 56 ) .  6 On  t h isdeba te se e:  (Be nsaude-Vi n cent and  Ko u nelis,19 91; A brante s  1 9 8 5, 130; Pr ínc ipe 2 0 0 8, 240-243 ) . 7O ne of th e cent ral fi gures o f  th is  moveme nto f  recognit ion of th e  hy po thet ical nat ur e of  p hys ic al theories isHelmholt z (Schie m a nn 200 9). João 
) and_the legitimization_of theoretical and methodological_pluralism, including_the_British physics_of_models, accepting the_use of analogies_and a degree of_inconsistency among models_and_among theories, justified by fertility. From a sociological and institutional point of view, it_reflects_a defensive_position_against_those who criticized science from_religious and philosophical points of_view and_undermined its reputation in an industrial society that_finances_research institutions and_promotes a new professional class.5 The term "descriptionism" favors_a phenomenological perspective; but it hides_the plurality of_viewpoints_on_physical theories, including the_persistence of atomistic beliefs. For example,_in the French case, these are_very present in the discussion that follows_the publication in 1895, in the_Revue générale des sciences, of_an article_by Wilhelm Ostwald, on the_defeat of materialism_in the_sciences. The translators_have called it "The defeat of_contemporary atomism." It_is primarily the mechanistic reductionism (matter_and_movement) that Ostwald_criticizes,_based_on his_vision of thermodynamics._In_his reply,_Alfred_Cornu, Vice-President of the Académie des_Sciences,_renews his credo in favor of a_mechanistic reductionist conception based_on_notions of material points_and reciprocal actions. Marcel Brillouin,_on his reply, advocates methodological pluralism_and individualism,_pointing out_the success of mechanistic theories in chemistry and of the mechanical_wave theory.6 As Olivier Darrigol has_remarked, Heilbron's thesis is_interesting in_that_it tries to_identify_a consensus,_but this consensus is not achieved around_a phenomenological_perspective of physical theories. It rather_promotes their hypothetical nature,_which_is clearly present in the title_of the book Science and hypothesis,_which includes texts written by_Poincaré_until_1900 (Darrigol 2016). The epistemological_reflections of Poincaré and Duhem, made_during the 1890s,_are also a sign of this epistemological_consensus,_which precedes that which will be_formed_at the beginning of the 20th_century_and_which will also include atoms.7_5 Indeed, many physicists, in their_practice, abdicated sophisticated epistemological reflections and adopted a realistic_spontaneous epistemology (Heilbron_1982, 56). 6 On this_debate_see:_(Bensaude-Vincent and Kounelis, 1991; Abrantes 1985, 130; Príncipe 2008, 240-243)._7 One_of the central_figures of this movement of recognition of the hypothetical nature_of physical theories is Helmholtz (Schiemann 2009)._João