 law of gravity, hold quam proxime over the restricted period of time for which the premises hold. The Rules of Reasoning then license the conclusion to be taken exactly, without restriction of space or time. The conclusions, so taken, do indeed then show that the premises hold only quam proxime, and not exactly. This conclusion in no way contradicts the premises. (Smith 2008) In the General Scholium, Newton would have mentioned a "deduction from phenomena" only in a generic form. The meaning of this expression would be that the inferences that culminated in the universal gravitation were undertaken on the grounds of Kepler's phenomena. As revealed in Book III of the Principia, for Newton both Kepler's phenomena and the conclusion of universal gravitation were approximate. In Smith's analysis, Duhem would have ignored this essentially approximate character of the Principia, a character already evidenced by Cohen's work (Cohen 1980). Bechler's interpretations converge with that of Smith. After informing that Newton himself perceived and explicitly expressed the above-mentioned "inconsistency", and that he did not seem surprised or worried about it at all, the author proceeds to an enlightening synthesis that reveals Newton's conclusion does not Duhem's Analysis of Newtonian Method and the Logical Priority of Physics over Metaphysics Eduardo Salles O. Barra – Ricardo Batista dos Santos 12 contradict his premises. It is worth looking at Bechler's arguments in detail. Abbreviating Kepler's laws of ellipses, areas, and period by KI, KII, and KIII, respectively, Bechler draws a distinction between "Keplerian motion" and "non-Keplerian motion" in a way that the former is the one that obeys at least two laws of Kepler, namely, KI and KII or KII and KIII. In addition, he distinguishes a "strictly Keplerian motion" (St.Kp.) and a "non strictly Keplerian motion" (N.St.Kp.), and an "observationally Keplerian motion" (Ob.Kp) and an "observationally non-keplerian motion" (Ob.N.Kp.). It is not difficult to realize that a St.Kp. will be an Ob.Kp., but an Ob.Kp. can be both St.Kp. and N.St.Kp; moreover, it is not difficult to realize that an Ob
law of gravity, hold quam proxime over the restricted period of meter for which the premise hold. The Rules of Reasoning then license the ending to be take exactly, without restriction of outer space or time. The conclusions, thus taken, do indeed then show that the premise hold only quam proxime, and not exactly. This conclusion in no direction contradicts the premises. (Smith 2008) In the General Scholium, Newton would have mentioned a " deduction from phenomena " merely in a generic form. The meaning of this expression would be that the inferences that culminate in the universal gravitation were undertaken on the grounds of Kepler's phenomenon. As revealed in Book III of the Principia, for Newton both Kepler's phenomena and the conclusion of universal gravitation were approximate. In Smith's psychoanalysis, Duhem would have ignored this essentially approximate character of the Principia, a character already evidenced by Cohen's work (Cohen 1980). Bechler's interpretation converge with that of Smith. After informing that Newton himself perceived and explicitly expressed the above - mentioned " inconsistency ", and that he did not seem surprised or worried about it at all, the author proceeds to an edifying deduction that reveals Newton's conclusion does not Duhem's Analysis of Newtonian Method and the Logical Priority of Physics over Metaphysics Eduardo Salles O. Barra – Ricardo Batista dos Santos 12 oppose his premises. It is worth looking at Bechler's argumentation in detail. Abbreviating Kepler's laws of ellipses, area, and period by KI, KII, and KIII, respectively, Bechler draws a distinction between " Keplerian motion " and " non - Keplerian motion " in a means that the former is the one that obeys at least two laws of Kepler, namely, KI and KII or KII and KIII. In addition, he spot a " rigorously Keplerian apparent motion " (St. Kp .) and a " non strictly Keplerian motion " (N.St. Kp .), and an " observationally Keplerian motion " (Ob. Kp) and an " observationally non - keplerian motion " (Ob. N.Kp .). It is not unmanageable to realize that a St. Kp. will be an Ob. Kp. , but an Ob. Kp. can be both St. Kp. and N.St. Kp; moreover, it is not difficult to realize that an Ob
 laa of gravity, hold quam pvoxime over the tewtrictxd perikd of tioe for which the premises hopd. The Eules of Reasoning thev license the conxlusmon to be taken xsactly, withouf rescrmction of space or time. Tve conclusions, su caken, do indeed then show that the pwemises hlld only quam kroxikq, ans not exactly. This conclusion in nk way cmntradicts thr premises. (Smith 2008) In the Gfnerwl Scholium, Newton would have meneuoned a "deduztion from phenomena" ohly in a generic form. The meanivg of this exprgsailt would be vhat tre inferences that cglminatrd in the univcrsal grqvitation were underteken on the grounds jf Kepler'v 'henomena. As revealed ib Boon IIH of rhe Prjnripja, for Nexton both Kspler's phenimena and the conclisyin of universzl gradieation were approximate. In Smith's analyvis, Duhem would have ignorwd this essentially akproximate character of the Principia, a character already eeidenrea bv Cohev'w aork (Cohen 1980). Bechler's interpretations converge siuh nhat of Smith. Aftcr informing that Meatpg himself perzeived ans explicitly expredsed thg abovw-mentioneq "invonsistency", and that he did not seem sugpriwed or worried abobt it at all, the authpr proceeds to an enligkteninf synthesis that revsxls Newton's concuuspon goes not Duhem's Analysis os Newtonien Mechod and the Logicwl Prioritj of Ivysics over Metaphjsics Eguardo Salpes O. Barra – Ricardo Batista dos Santos 12 conttadhct his preiises. It is worth jooking at Beckler's aryumentr in detaim. Abbretiating Keplqr's laws of enpipses, areas, and peryod vy KU, KII, ava KIII, respectovely, Beckjer eraws a distinctiok betdsen "Keplerian mitiin" and "non-Kepletiav mjtpon" ig a way that dhe wororr is the ont tmat obeus at least two laws of Iepler, namely, KI amd KII or JII and HIII. In additoon, he distinguishts a "svrictlb Keplrriwn motion" (St.Kp.) and a "non stricfly Keplegiak motion" (N.St.K[.), ane an "observacionally Keplerian motion" (Ob.Kp) and an "obwervationally non-kwplerian motion" (Ob.N.Lk.). It is not dmfficujt to reanize that a St.Kp. wilo be an Ob.Kp., but sn Ob.Kp. can be both Sf.Kp. ang N.St.Np; moreover, it is not difficult to realize that an Ob
law of gravity, hold quam proxime over period time for the premises hold. license conclusion to be exactly, without restriction space or time. The conclusions, so do indeed then show that the premises hold only quam proxime, and not This conclusion in no way contradicts the premises. (Smith 2008) In the General Newton have a from phenomena" only in a generic form. The meaning of this expression would be that the that culminated in the universal gravitation were undertaken the grounds of Kepler's As revealed in Book III the for Newton Kepler's and conclusion of universal were approximate. In Smith's analysis, Duhem would have ignored this essentially approximate character of the Principia, a already evidenced work (Cohen Bechler's converge that of Smith. that Newton himself perceived and explicitly "inconsistency", and that he did not seem surprised worried about at all, the author proceeds to enlightening synthesis that reveals Newton's conclusion does not Analysis of Newtonian Method and the Logical Priority of Physics over Metaphysics Eduardo Salles O. Ricardo Batista dos Santos contradict his premises. is looking Bechler's in detail. Kepler's laws of ellipses, areas, and period by KI, KII, and respectively, Bechler draws a distinction between "Keplerian motion" and "non-Keplerian a that the former the one that obeys least laws of Kepler, namely, KII KII addition, distinguishes "strictly Keplerian motion" (St.Kp.) a "non strictly Keplerian motion" and an "observationally Keplerian non-keplerian motion" (Ob.N.Kp.). It is not difficult to that a St.Kp. will be an Ob.Kp., an Ob.Kp. can be both St.Kp. and N.St.Kp; moreover, it is not to realize Ob
 law of gravity, hold quam proxiMe over the rEstriCteD peRiOd of Time For which the preMIses Hold. The Rules of ReasoninG then LiCEnse THe ConclUsion to BE tAKEn eXaCtLy, wItHOuT restRicTion of sPace or time. the CoNclusions, so tAKeN, do indeed tHen Show that the pRemIses hoLd OnlY Quam pRoxIme, anD not exACtly. ThIs conclusIoN In no waY ContradICTs The pRemises. (Smith 2008) In the gEnERal Scholium, NewTon wouLd HAvE MEntIonEd a "deductiOn From pHEnomena" ONlY IN A geNEric form. The meAning of this EXprEssion WoUld BE that tHe infErENceS that culminAted In the univErsal gRAvitatiON were unDertakEn oN thE groUNdS oF KePlER's pHEnOmeNA. As Revealed In boOk III Of thE pRINcipIa, fOr NeWton bOth Kepler's pheNomEna aND thE concLusioN of uNiVersaL graviTatioN wEre approximate. IN SmiTh's analysIs, DUhEm wOuLd havE IgnoreD thIs eSsentiaLly apprOXimAtE CHArActer of the PrincipiA, a CHArActer alrEady evIDeNcED by Cohen'S wOrk (coheN 1980). bEchleR's inTErPretatioNs convERgE wIth that Of smith. AFtEr iNfoRming THat NEwton hImself peRceivED and explicitly EXpressed the abOVe-MENtIOned "IncOnsistency", aNd thAT he dId noT SeEm sURprisEd or wOrRIeD About it at all, the authOr ProceeDs to aN enlightening Synthesis tHAT Reveals NEwtoN'S cONclusion does noT DuheM's Analysis OF NewtoniAn MetHod and thE Logical PRIOrity of PHysIcs OveR MeTAPhYsics Eduardo SALLes O. baRra – RicaRdo batista Dos sanTos 12 ConTrAdict his pRemises. IT iS wOrTh LooKing aT bechler's ArGumEnTs iN detaIL. AbbreViatiNg KePlEr'S LawS of elliPSeS, AReas, AnD pErioD by kI, kII, anD KIIi, ResPectiveLy, Bechler DraWS a diStInCtion beTween "KepleriaN mOtion" and "noN-KEplErian mOTIon" in a waY that the former is the one tHAt obeys At lEast tWo laWs of KepleR, naMely, KI And kiI or KIi and KIiI. In aDdItiON, He disTINgUisHeS a "strictly kEPleRian mOtIon" (ST.Kp.) and a "Non strictly KepleriAN moTion" (N.St.Kp.), and aN "obServATIoNalLY KEPleRiAN moTIOn" (Ob.Kp) and an "obseRvationallY nON-kEplerian moTIon" (ob.n.Kp.). It is Not diffIcult TO realizE that a St.KP. will be an ob.kp., buT AN Ob.kp. can be botH St.Kp. and n.St.Kp; moreOVer, it IS nOt difFicUlt to rEaLizE that An Ob
 law of gravity, hold quam  proxime o ver t heres tr icte d pe riod of time f o r wh ich the premises hold.  TheRu l es o f  R eason ing the n  l i c ens eth e c on c lu siontobe take n exactly,  wi th out restrict i on  of spaceortime. The co ncl usions ,sot aken,  do  inde ed the n  showthat thepr e misesh old onl y qu am p roxime, and not e x ac t ly. This concl usionin no w aycon tradicts t he  prem i ses. (S m it h 2 008 )  In the Gener al Scholium ,  Ne wton w ou ldh ave me ntion ed a " deduction f romphenomena " only in a ge n eric fo rm. Th e m ean ingo fth isex p res s io n w o uld  be that  t he  infe renc e s t hatcul mina ted i n the univers algrav i tat ion w ere u nder ta ken o n thegroun ds  of Kepler's ph enom ena. As r eve al edin  Book III of  th e P rincipi a, forN ewt on b o th  Kepler's phenomen aa n dthe conc lusion of  u n iversalgr avi tati o n  were  app r ox imate. I n Smit h 's  a nalysis ,Duhemwo uld  ha ve ig n ored  thisessentia lly a p proximate char a cter of the P r in c i pi a , acha racter alre adye vide nced by  Co h en'swork(C o he n  1980). Bechler's i nt erpret ation s converge wi th that of S m ith. Aft er i n fo r ming that Newt on hi mself perc e ived and  expl icitly e xpressedt h e above- men tio ned  "i n c on sistency", an d that  h e did n otseem su rpr ise d o r w or ried abou t it atal l,  t he  au thorp roceedsto  an  e nli ghten i ng syn thesi s th at  r e vea ls Newt o n' s conc lu si on d oes  n ot Du hem' s  An alysisof Newton ian Meth od  a nd theLogical Prior it y of Physi cs  ov er Met a p hysics E duardo Salles O. Barra–  Ricard o B atist a do s Santos12contra dic t  his p remise s. It  i s w o r th lo o k in g a tBechler'sa r gum entsin  det ail. Ab breviating Kepler' s  la ws of ellipse s,area s ,  a ndp er i odby KI, K II, and KIII, r espectivel y, Be chler draw s  adi stincti on betw een " K epleria n motion"  and "non -K eple r i anmotion" in  a way t hat the f o rmeri sthe o nethat o be ysat le ast tw o  la ws of  Keple r,  namel y, KI  a nd KII o r KII and KIII. In addi tion,he di sti nguishesa " s tri ctly Kepl eria n motion"(St .Kp .) an d a "nonstri c tl y K e pleri an m o tion" (N. S t. Kp. ) ,  a nd an "obse r v a tio nally  Ke p lerian  mot ion" (Ob.Kp) anda n "observation ally n on- kep l eria nmotion" (Ob.N. Kp. ). I t is not  d ifficult to  realize  t h at aSt.Kp.  willbe an O b . Kp . , butan O b.K p. can be  bo th St.Kp.an dN .St.Kp ; mo re over,it isn ot d i f ficult to realiz e tha t an Ob 
 law_of gravity,_hold quam proxime over_the restricted_period_of time_for_which the premises_hold. The Rules_of Reasoning then license_the conclusion to_be_taken exactly, without restriction of space or time. The conclusions, so taken, do indeed_then_show that_the_premises_hold only quam proxime, and_not exactly. This conclusion in_no way_contradicts the premises. (Smith 2008) In the General_Scholium,_Newton would have_mentioned a "deduction from phenomena" only in a generic_form. The meaning of this expression_would be that_the_inferences_that culminated in the_universal gravitation were undertaken on the_grounds of Kepler's phenomena. As revealed_in Book III of the Principia, for_Newton both Kepler's phenomena and the_conclusion of universal gravitation were_approximate. In_Smith's analysis, Duhem would have_ignored this essentially_approximate character_of the Principia,_a character already evidenced by Cohen's_work (Cohen 1980)._Bechler's interpretations converge with that of_Smith._After informing that_Newton_himself_perceived and_explicitly expressed the_above-mentioned_"inconsistency", and_that_he did not seem surprised or_worried_about it at all, the author proceeds_to an enlightening synthesis_that_reveals Newton's conclusion does_not Duhem's Analysis of Newtonian_Method and the Logical Priority of_Physics over_Metaphysics Eduardo_Salles O. Barra – Ricardo Batista dos Santos 12 contradict his_premises. It is worth looking at_Bechler's arguments in detail._Abbreviating Kepler's_laws_of ellipses, areas,_and_period by_KI, KII, and KIII, respectively, Bechler draws_a distinction_between "Keplerian motion" and "non-Keplerian motion"_in a way that_the_former is the one that obeys_at least two laws of Kepler,_namely, KI and KII or_KII_and_KIII. In addition, he distinguishes_a "strictly Keplerian motion" (St.Kp.) and_a "non strictly_Keplerian motion" (N.St.Kp.), and an "observationally Keplerian_motion"_(Ob.Kp) and an "observationally non-keplerian motion"_(Ob.N.Kp.)._It is not difficult to realize_that_a_St.Kp. will be an Ob.Kp.,_but an Ob.Kp. can be both_St.Kp. and N.St.Kp; moreover, it is not difficult to_realize that an_Ob