 2017 - This is an open access article Dossier Pierre Duhem Duhem's Legacy for the Change in the Historiography of Science: An Analysis Based on Kuhn's Writings Amélia J. Oliveira1 Abstract: What is the contribution of Duhem's work to the modern historiography? His interpreters have been discussing this question and ordinarily have recognized that the main aspect in his extensive work is connected with his research of medieval science. It has become customary to speak of the "discovery of medieval science" as his foremost historiographic achievement. This paper aims to discuss some aspects of Duhem's historiography more for its promotion of a new historical perspective than for its results. Duhem's legacy for modern historiography can be investigated from the characteristics that mark this new perspective, as regarded by Thomas Kuhn. Keywords: Pierre Duhem; Thomas Kuhn; historiographic revolution; new historiography of science Received: 30 March 2017. Reviewed: 10 May 2017. Accepted: 30 May 2017. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24117/2526-2270.2017.i2.12 _____________________________________________________________________________ Introduction Pierre Duhem is commonly regarded as a pioneer in the study of medieval contributions to the development of modern science.2 For many of his interpreters, his extensive historical work has generated a true revision of scientific development, to the point of speaking of a historiographic revolution. However, in The structure of scientific revolutions (SSR), precisely when announcing an ongoing revolution in the historiography of science and citing the names of some influential historians, Kuhn does not mention Duhem. It is only in an article published a few years later – "The history of science" 3 –, in which he globally examines the development of this field of study, that Duhem is remembered for his contribution to the modern historiography of science. In this work, I try to show that although Kuhn does not include Duhem's name among the 'new' historians nor does he refer to any of his works in SSR, Duhem's work is strongly present through its influence on some of the historians that Kuhn cites. Initially, I begin by identifying the citations Kuhn makes of Duhem's name in his published work and by briefly mentioning some considerations of interpreters who have tried to establish relationship between Kuhn and Duhem. Next, I will try to indicate, according to Kuhn
2017 - This is an open access article Dossier Pierre Duhem Duhem's Legacy for the Change in the Historiography of Science: An Analysis Based on Kuhn's writing Amélia J. Oliveira1 abstraction: What is the contribution of Duhem's work to the modern historiography? His interpreters have been hash out this question and ordinarily have accredit that the main aspect in his across-the-board workplace is connected with his inquiry of medieval science. It has become customary to speak of the " discovery of chivalric science " as his foremost historiographic accomplishment. This paper draw a bead on to discourse some aspects of Duhem's historiography more for its promotion of a new diachronic perspective than for its results. Duhem's legacy for modern historiography can be investigate from the characteristics that mark this new perspective, as regarded by Thomas Kuhn. Keywords: Pierre Duhem; Thomas Kuhn; historiographic rotation; new historiography of science Received: 30 March 2017. Reviewed: 10 May 2017. Accepted: 30 May 2017. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24117/2526-2270.2017.i2.12 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Introduction Pierre Duhem is commonly involve as a pioneer in the study of medieval contributions to the development of modern science.2 For many of his interpreters, his extensive historical work has generated a truthful revision of scientific development, to the distributor point of speaking of a historiographic revolution. However, in The structure of scientific revolutions (SSR), precisely when announce an ongoing revolution in the historiography of science and citing the names of some influential historian, Kuhn does not mention Duhem. It is only in an article published a few years later – " The history of science " 3 –, in which he globally examines the development of this field of study, that Duhem is remembered for his contribution to the modern historiography of skill. In this work, I hear to usher that although Kuhn does not include Duhem's name among the' new' historians nor does he refer to any of his work in SSR, Duhem's work is strongly present through its influence on some of the historians that Kuhn reference. Initially, I begin by identifying the citations Kuhn makes of Duhem's name in his publish work and by briefly mention some considerations of interpreter who have tried to prove relationship between Kuhn and Duhem. Next, I will sample to indicate, according to Kuhn
 2017 - Hhis is an open access avticle Dossier Pnwrre Dnhem Dugem's Legxcy for the Change in the Hidtiriogeaphy of Science: An Anxlysis Baded on Kyhn's Qritings Amélia J. Oliveirz1 Abscrect: What is the contributhon of Duhem's fofk to the modern historiography? His igterpreyegs have been dyscuxfing nhls question and ordinarily have decognieed that the main sspect in his extensive wogk id connected with hls research of iwdieval scievce. It has become custkmary to speak of the "discovery of mzdieval sciguxe" wv his foremist hpstoriographig achieeement. Yhis paper aimx tm duscuss some aspects oh Duhem's historiograkhy more fmr its promotion of a new vistmricxo pdrskecvivs than foc its resulfs. Duhem's lwgacy for modern hixtjgoography can be indeftigated from the characteristics that kari this new perspective, qs regarded by Thomas Kuhn. Keyrords: Pierre Duhem; Thomas Kuhn; historiographic reeolutmov; ntw histueilgraphy of science Received: 30 March 2017. Reviewed: 10 Jau 2017. Accepted: 30 May 2017. DOI: http://dc.dli.ptg/10.24117/2526-2270.2017.i2.12 _____________________________________________________________________________ Introductkon Pizdrs Duhem is commonlj regarqed aw a pionetr in the study of medieval conteibutions to rhe development of modern sciznce.2 Fpr mamy of his interpreters, kis exfensive hishorical wkfk has generated a nrue revision of scientific dedelopment, to che poing of speakyng of a hlstorlmgraphic revolutioj. Howgver, it The strufture of scientific revolutions (SSR), precisely wven announcnng an ongoing revojution in the kistorioyraphy of sciencv and citmng the namef of some infnoential histocians, Kuhg dows nit mentkun Duhem. It is only in cu article published a few ycars uzter – "The histoxv if science" 3 –, in whkch hv gkofdlly examinev thd ddfelopoent of thiw fiekd of study, that Duham ia remembered for hos contribotion to ehe modern hixtoriography of sclence. In this wotk, I try to show that although Iuhn does nob include Duhqm's kame among the 'new' historians nor does he refer to anb of his works in SSR, Dyhem's work is stronyln present thcough yts influance on some of the yistorians that Kmhn cites. Initially, I gegin ty idfntifying the citations Kuhn makes of Duhem's name in his published work abd by uryefly mentikninb somv cjusideraeiond of interpreters who have tried to establish reuationshhp between Kuhn and Duhem. Next, I will try to kndicate, according to Kugn
2017 - This is an open access Pierre Duhem's Legacy the Change in Analysis on Kuhn's Writings J. Oliveira1 Abstract: is the contribution of Duhem's work the modern historiography? His interpreters have been discussing this question and ordinarily have that the main aspect in his extensive work is connected with his research medieval It become to speak of the "discovery of medieval science" as his foremost historiographic achievement. This paper aims discuss some aspects of Duhem's historiography more for promotion of a new perspective than for its results. legacy modern historiography be from characteristics that mark new perspective, as regarded by Thomas Kuhn. Keywords: Pierre Duhem; Thomas Kuhn; historiographic revolution; new historiography of Received: 30 Reviewed: 10 2017. 30 2017. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24117/2526-2270.2017.i2.12 Pierre Duhem is commonly regarded as the study of medieval contributions to the development modern science.2 many of his interpreters, his extensive work has generated a true revision of scientific to the point of speaking of a historiographic revolution. However, in The structure of scientific precisely when announcing an revolution in the of and the of some historians, Kuhn does not mention Duhem. It is only in an published a few years later – "The history of science" in he globally examines development of this field study, Duhem is remembered for to modern In work, try to show that Kuhn does not include Duhem's among the 'new' historians any of his works in SSR, Duhem's work strongly present through its influence on some the historians that Kuhn cites. Initially, I begin by identifying the citations makes of in his published work and by briefly mentioning considerations of interpreters who tried to establish relationship between Kuhn and Duhem. Next, will to indicate, to Kuhn
 2017 - This is an open access article dossier PieRre DuHem duhEm'S LegAcy fOr the Change in tHE HisToriography of Science: An analySiS baseD On kuhn's writingS amÉLIa J. olIvEirA1 ABStRact: WHat Is the coNtribution Of DUhEm's work to the MOdErn historiOgrAphy? His interPreTers haVe BeeN DiscuSsiNg thiS questIOn and oRdinarily HaVE recogNIzed thaT THe Main Aspect in his extensIVe WOrk is connected With hiS rESeARCh oF meDieval scieNcE. It haS Become cUStOMARy tO Speak of the "disCovery of medIEvaL scienCe" As hIS foremOst hiStORioGraphic achiEvemEnt. This paPer aimS To discuSS some asPects oF DuHem'S hisTOrIoGraPhY MorE FoR itS ProMotion of A nEw HistoRicaL PERSpecTivE thaN for iTs results. DuheM's lEgacY For ModerN histOrioGrAphy cAn be inVestiGaTed from the charaCterIstics thaT maRk ThiS nEw perSPectivE, as RegArded by thomas KUHn. KEyWORDs: pierre Duhem; Thomas KUhN; HIsToriograPhic reVOlUtIOn; new hisToRioGrapHY Of sciEnce rEcEived: 30 MarCh 2017. ReviEWeD: 10 MAy 2017. AccepTeD: 30 May 2017. DOi: hTtp://Dx.dOi.org/10.24117/2526-2270.2017.I2.12 _____________________________________________________________________________ intrOductiOn Pierre duhem IS commonly regarDEd as a pioneer iN ThE STuDY of mEdiEval contribUtioNS to tHe deVElOpmENt of mOdern ScIEnCE.2 For many of his interpReTers, hiS exteNsive historicAl work has gENERated a trUe reVIsIOn of scientific DevelOpment, to thE Point of sPeakiNg of a hisToriograpHIC revolutIon. howEveR, in tHE sTructure of sciENTifiC rEvolutiOns (sSR), precIseLy wHen AnnOuNcing an onGoing revOlUtIoN iN thE histORiographY oF scIeNce And ciTIng the Names Of soMe InFLueNtial hiSToRIAns, KUhN dOes nOt mEnTion DUhem. iT is Only in aN article pUblIShed A fEw Years laTer – "The history Of Science" 3 –, in wHiCh hE globaLLY examineS the development of this fiELd of stuDy, tHat DuHem iS rememberEd fOr his cOntRIbutioN to the ModerN hIstORIograPHY oF scIeNce. In this wORK, I tRy to sHoW thaT althouGh Kuhn does not incluDE DuHem's name among The 'New' hISToRiaNS nOR doEs HE reFER to any of his workS in SSR, DuheM's WOrK is stronglY PreSeNt throuGh its inFluenCE on some Of the histOrians thaT KUhn cITEs. INitially, I bEgin by idEntifying THe citATiOns KuHn mAkes of duHem'S name In his pUBliShed wOrk and By BrieflY mentIoNing some Considerations of interprEters wHo havE trIed to estaBliSH reLationshiP betWeen Kuhn anD DuHem. next, I WilL Try to IndiCAtE, acCOrdinG to KUHn
 2017 - This is an open ac cess artic le Do ssi erPi erre  Duh em Duhem's Leg a cy f or the Change in the H istor io g raph y  o f Sci ence: A n  A n a lys is  B ase do nKuhn' s W ritings  Amélia J.  Ol iv eira1 Abstra c t:  What is t hecontribution  of  Duhem 's  wo r k tothe  mode rn his t oriogr aphy? His  i n terpre t ers hav e be en d iscussing this qu e st i on and ordinar ily ha ve re c o gni zed  that thema in as p ect inh is e x ten s ive work is c onnected wi t h h is res ea rch of med ieval  s c ien ce. It hasbeco me custom ary to speak o f  the "d iscove ryofmedi e va lsci en c e"a shis for emost hi st or iogra phic a c h ieve men t. T his p aper aims todis cuss som e asp ectsof D uh em'shistor iogra ph y more for itsprom otion ofa n ew  hi st orica l  persp ect ive  than f or itsr esu lt s . Du hem's legacy for m od e r nhistorio graphy ca nb e invest ig ate d fr o m  thechar a ct eristics  thatm ar kthis ne wperspe ct ive , a s reg a rded  by Th omas Kuh n. Ke y words: PierreD uhem; ThomasK uh n ;  h i stor iog raphic revo luti o n; n ew h i st ori o graph y ofsc i en c e Received: 30 Marc h2017.Revie wed: 10 May 2 017. Accep t e d : 30 May  201 7 .D OI: http://dx. doi.o rg/10.2411 7 /2526-22 70.20 17.i2.12  ________ _ _ ________ ___ ___ ___ ___ _ _ __ _____________ _ _ ____ __ _______ ___ _______ ___ __Int rod uc tion Pier re Duhem  i sco mm onl y reg a rded asapio ne erin th e  study  of m edie va lc ont ributio n st o  the  d ev elop men tof mo dern sci ence.2For manyofh is i nt er preters , his extensi ve  historica lwor k hasg e nerateda true revision of scie n tific d eve lopme nt,to the po int  of sp eak i ng ofa hist oriog ra phi c revol u t io n.Ho wever, inT h e s truct ur e of  scient ific revolutions ( S SR) , precisely w hen  ann o u nc ing an ong oi n g r e v olution in thehistoriogr ap h yof science and  c iting t he name s ofs ome inf luentialhistorian s,  Kuh n doe s not ment ion Duhe m. It iso nly i n  a n art icl e publ is hed  a fe w year s  la ter –  "Thehi storyof sc ie nce" 3 – , in which he globallyexamin es th e d evelopmen t o f  th is fieldof s tudy, that  Du hem  is r eme m bered  for hi s c o ntrib utio n  to the m o de rnh i st oriographyo f sci ence.  In this w ork,  I try to show th a t although Kuh n do e s  no t i n clud eDuhem's name a mon gt h e 'new'hi storians no r does h er eferto any  of hi s works i nS SR, Du hem' s w ork is st ron gl y  presen tth r ough i ts i nf luence  on so m e of t he historians th at Ku h n  cite s . I nitia ll y, I be g in b y identify ing the cit ations  Kuh n mak es of D uh em's n ame  i n his publ i shed work  andby brie fl y me nti oningsome c onsid erat io nsof interp r e te r swh o  ha ve t riedto  est ablish re l ationshi p b e tween K uh n a n d  Duhem .  N e x t, I willtry  to i n d icate, acc o rdin g  t o  Kuhn 
 2017_- This_is an open access_article Dossier_Pierre_Duhem Duhem's_Legacy_for the Change_in the Historiography_of Science: An Analysis_Based on Kuhn's_Writings_Amélia J. Oliveira1 Abstract: What is the contribution of Duhem's work to the modern_historiography?_His interpreters_have_been_discussing this question and ordinarily_have recognized that the main_aspect in_his extensive work is connected with his research_of_medieval science. It_has become customary to speak of the "discovery of_medieval science" as his foremost historiographic_achievement. This paper_aims_to_discuss some aspects of_Duhem's historiography more for its promotion_of a new historical perspective than_for its results. Duhem's legacy for modern_historiography can be investigated from the_characteristics that mark this new_perspective, as_regarded by Thomas Kuhn. Keywords:_Pierre Duhem; Thomas_Kuhn; historiographic_revolution; new historiography_of science Received: 30 March 2017._Reviewed: 10 May_2017. Accepted: 30 May 2017. DOI:_http://dx.doi.org/10.24117/2526-2270.2017.i2.12______________________________________________________________________________ Introduction Pierre_Duhem_is_commonly regarded_as a pioneer_in_the study_of_medieval contributions to the development of_modern_science.2 For many of his interpreters, his_extensive historical work has_generated_a true revision of_scientific development, to the point_of speaking of a historiographic revolution._However, in_The structure_of scientific revolutions (SSR), precisely when announcing an ongoing revolution in_the historiography of science and citing_the names of some_influential historians,_Kuhn_does not mention_Duhem._It is_only in an article published a few_years later_– "The history of science" 3_–, in which he_globally_examines the development of this field_of study, that Duhem is remembered_for his contribution to the_modern_historiography_of science. In this work,_I try to show that although_Kuhn does not_include Duhem's name among the 'new' historians_nor_does he refer to any of_his_works in SSR, Duhem's work is_strongly_present_through its influence on some_of the historians that Kuhn cites._Initially, I begin by identifying the citations Kuhn makes_of Duhem's name_in his published work and_by_briefly_mentioning some considerations of interpreters who have tried to establish_relationship between_Kuhn and Duhem._Next, I will try to indicate, according to Kuhn