 mechanistic program brought into evidence this methodological truth: "if a phenomena has a complete mechanical explanation, it will have an infinity of others which give an equally good account for all the particularities revealed by experiment" (Poincaré 1901, viii). This methodological conclusion contains the core of Poincaré's pragmatist/conventionalist view, the principle of the underdetermination of physical theory by data (Pareto 1909, 31-36), which Duhem's theory of science strives to make illegitimate. So what one must understand by a mechanical explanation of physical phenomena is the possibility of constructing an independent system of equations made up of kinetic (T) energy and potential (U) energy and certain numbers of parameters (generalized coordinates). Assuming that one can construct such equations, one can always, according to Poincaré's analysis of Maxwell's analytic method, determine masses (hidden or visible) and their generalized coordinates in such a way that the kinetic and potential energy of this system of masses is equal to that of the kinetic (T) and potential (U) energy appearing in Lagrange's equations (Poincaré 1901, viii). From these conditions and from Lagrange's equation one draws the equations for the motion of the system. If these equations are identical with the empirical laws constructed by the experimental method, then, according to Maxwell, "we shall have proved that electromagnetic phenomena are capable of a mechanical explication" (Duhem 1980, 70). Duhem questions that these conditions prove that a physical phenomenon is susceptible to a mechanical explication. All one has here is a mechanical interpretation or analogy. Duhem's Analysis and Objections to the Analytic Approach to Mechanicism Duhem begins his criticism of the analytic approach by questioning the identity between analytic mechanics and mechanical explanation. First, though, it should be recalled that, with this approach, attempts are made to avoid the aforementioned difficulties arising from the synthetic approach. Those difficulties associated with the complicated and bizarre form of mechanical models (Duhem 1980, 68-69; Poincaré 1901, ix; Chiappin 57-58) arise from the demand of making conjectures about, or simulating, the particular mechanisms underlying the physical phenomena being studied. Nothing similar is done in the analytic approach: there is no demand to construct a mechanical model. The task is to construct the algebraic equations of the kinetic and potential energy of the system and to apply them to Lagrange's equations. The construction of these equations employs the measurable quantities of observable physical phenomena. The agreement between the empirical laws of
mechanistic program brought into evidence this methodological truth: " if a phenomena take a accomplished mechanical explanation, it will have an infinity of others which give an evenly good account for all the particularities uncover by experiment " (Poincaré 1901, viii). This methodological conclusion contains the kernel of Poincaré's pragmatist / conventionalist view, the principle of the underdetermination of forcible theory by data (Pareto 1909, 31 - 36), which Duhem's theory of science endeavor to make illegitimate. So what one must understand by a mechanical explanation of physical phenomena is the hypothesis of constructing an independent system of equality made up of kinetic (T) energy and electric potential (U) department of energy and certain numbers of parameters (generalized coordinates). Assuming that one can construct such equation, one can always, according to Poincaré's analysis of Maxwell's analytic method, determine masses (hidden or visible) and their generalized coordinates in such a way that the kinetic and potential energy of this system of masses is equal to that of the kinetic (T) and potential (U) energy look in Lagrange's equations (Poincaré 1901, viii). From these conditions and from Lagrange's equality one puff the equation for the motion of the system. If these equations are identical with the empirical laws constructed by the experimental method, then, harmonize to Maxwell, " we shall have proved that electromagnetic phenomena are capable of a mechanical explication " (Duhem 1980, 70). Duhem questions that these conditions prove that a forcible phenomenon is susceptible to a mechanical explication. All one has here is a mechanical interpretation or analogy. Duhem's Analysis and Objections to the Analytic Approach to Mechanicism Duhem begins his criticism of the analytic approach by questioning the identity between analytic mechanics and mechanical explanation. foremost, though, it should be recall that, with this approach, attempts are made to avoid the aforesaid difficulties arising from the synthetic approach. Those difficulties associated with the complicated and bizarre form of mechanical models (Duhem 1980, 68 - 69; Poincaré 1901, ix; Chiappin 57 - 58) arise from the need of making speculate about, or simulating, the particular mechanisms underlying the physical phenomenon being studied. Nothing alike is done in the analytic overture: there is no demand to reconstruct a mechanical model. The job is to construct the algebraic equations of the kinetic and potential energy of the system and to apply them to Lagrange's equations. The construction of these equations use the measurable quantities of observable forcible phenomena. The agreement between the empirical laws of
 mefhanistic program broughu into evidence tkus metiodologjcal trugh: "if a phenomena has a comppere mexhanical explanation, ig will hane an infunitb of others whici give ak equzply yoid account for all the pdrticularities rdvzaled by experiment" (Poincaré 1901, viii). Thys methpdllogical conclosion sontzpnw the core of Poincaré's pragmafist/connentionalist view, the principle of the undegdetfrmination of physlcal theory by qqta (Pareto 1909, 31-36), which Duhtm'v theory or science strives to make illegktimace. So what inw mkvt understaid by w mechanical explanadion of physical phenpmeia iw the possibility of ronstructing an indekendent syvtzm of equations made yp of khnethc (T) wnefgy aid lotentlal (U) energy znd certain numbers of paramettrs (teneralized ckordinwtqs). Assuming that one can construct such eqhations, one can always, qccording to Poincaré's analysis of Maxwell's analytic method, determine masses (hidgen oc xisnnjd) ajd their generalized coordinates in such a war tnan the kinetic and potential rnfrbi of this systgm of mcasss is equal to thah of thg kineric (T) and potrntial (U) energy appearing ib Lagrange's vquarions (Poincaré 1901, viin). From these concitioms and from Lagrange's eduatjon one draas the eqhxtions for the mutipn of the system. If these eqtations ace idzntical dith the eipirical lwws constructed by the edperilettal methof, then, according to Maxwell, "we shall have profeg tvat eleccromagketic phenomena are capable oy a mechcnical explicatikn" (Duhek 1980, 70). Duhem qtestions that jhese conditimns provq thqt a physicxu phenomenon ix susceptpbje ti a mechanical expkicxfion. All one haw htrw is a mechanival ineegprxtatijt or analogy. Duhdm's Snalyris and Objcctkons to the Analytic Appsoacg to Mechanicism Dihcm begins his crieicism of the analytic approach by qnestioiing tne ydentity between analytic mechznics and meghanical explwnatlon. Sirst, thouyh, it should be recalled that, with this epproach, attempts are mqde to avoid the afpvementioned viffictlties arhsing from the synthwtic approach. Thoxe difficulties assocjated fith hhe complicated and bizarre form of mechanical models (Duhem 1980, 68-69; Poincaré 1901, ix; Chiap'ig 57-58) arise frkm tne dekaud pf makyng roijectures about, og simulating, the particular mechenisms undarjying the physical phenomena bding studied. Vothing similar is done jn the amalytic approach: there is no dekand to construct a mechsnical midel. Fhe task ir to construct the algebxaic ewuationw of the kinetic xnd pltential fnerjy kf the system and to apply them ro Lageajge's equations. Tie constructlok of tgese ezuations employs the leasutable quantitirs of observabke physical phenomend. Ehe agreement vvtween the emkirical naws of
mechanistic program brought into evidence this methodological a has a mechanical explanation, it others give an equally account for all particularities revealed by experiment" (Poincaré 1901, This methodological conclusion contains the core of Poincaré's pragmatist/conventionalist view, the principle of underdetermination of physical theory by data (Pareto 1909, 31-36), which Duhem's theory of strives make So one must understand by a mechanical explanation of physical phenomena is the possibility of constructing an system of equations made up of kinetic (T) and potential (U) energy certain numbers of parameters (generalized Assuming one can such one always, according to analysis of Maxwell's analytic method, determine masses (hidden or visible) and their generalized coordinates in such a that the potential energy this of is equal to the kinetic (T) and potential (U) Lagrange's equations (Poincaré 1901, viii). From these conditions from Lagrange's one draws the equations for the of the system. If these equations are identical the empirical laws constructed by the experimental method, then, according to Maxwell, "we shall have electromagnetic phenomena are capable a mechanical explication" 1980, Duhem that conditions prove a physical phenomenon is susceptible to a mechanical explication. All one here is a mechanical interpretation or analogy. Duhem's Analysis and the Approach to Mechanicism begins his criticism of analytic by questioning the identity mechanics mechanical it be that, with this approach, are made to avoid the difficulties arising from the with the complicated and bizarre form of mechanical (Duhem 1980, 68-69; Poincaré 1901, ix; Chiappin arise from the demand of making conjectures about, or simulating, the particular underlying the being studied. Nothing similar is done in the approach: there is no to construct a mechanical model. The task is to the equations of kinetic and potential of the system to apply them equations. The of equations quantities of observable physical phenomena. The between empirical laws of
 mechanistic program brought Into evidenCe thiS meThoDoLogiCal tRuth: "if a phenomeNA has A complete mechanical expLanatIoN, It wiLL hAve an InfinitY Of OTHerS wHiCh gIvE An EqualLy gOod accoUnt for all tHe pArTicularities REvEaled by expEriMent" (Poincaré 1901, ViiI). This mEtHodOLogicAl cOncluSion coNTains tHe core of POiNCaré's pRAgmatisT/COnVentIonalist view, the prINcIPle of the underdEtermiNaTIoN OF phYsiCal theory bY dAta (PaREto 1909, 31-36), whicH duHEM'S thEOry of science sTrives to makE IllEgitimAtE. So WHat one Must uNdERstAnd by a mechaNicaL explanatIon of pHYsical pHEnomena Is the pOssIbiLity OF cOnStrUcTIng AN iNdePEndEnt systeM oF eQuatiOns mADE UP of kIneTic (T) EnergY and potential (u) enErgy ANd cErtaiN numbErs oF pArameTers (geNeralIzEd coordinates). AsSumiNg that one Can CoNstRuCt sucH EquatiOns, One Can alwaYs, accorDIng To pOINcAré's analysis of MaxwElL'S AnAlytic meThod, deTErMiNE masses (hIdDen Or viSIBle) anD theIR gEneralizEd coorDInAtEs in sucH a Way thaT tHe kIneTic anD PoteNtial eNergy of tHis sySTem of masses is eQUal to that of thE KiNETiC (t) and PotEntial (U) enerGy apPEariNg in lAgRanGE's equAtionS (POInCAré 1901, viii). From these conDiTions aNd froM Lagrange's equAtion one drAWS The equatIons FOr THe motion of the sYstem. if these equATions are IdentIcal with The empiriCAL laws conStrUctEd bY thE EXpErimental methOD, Then, AcCording To MAxwell, "wE shAll HavE prOvEd that eleCtromagnEtIc PhEnOmeNa are CApable of A mEchAnIcaL explICation" (duhem 1980, 70). duheM qUeSTioNs that tHEsE COndiTiOnS proVe tHaT a phySicaL PheNomenon Is susceptIblE To a mEcHaNical exPlication. All oNe Has here is a MeChaNical iNTErpretatIon or analogy. Duhem's AnalySIs and ObJecTions To thE Analytic appRoach tO MeCHaniciSm DuheM begiNs His CRIticiSM Of The AnAlytic apprOACh bY quesTiOninG the ideNtity between analytIC meChanics and mecHanIcal EXPlAnaTIoN. firSt, THouGH, It should be recalLed that, witH tHIs Approach, atTEmpTs Are made To avoid The afORementiOned diffiCulties arIsIng fROM thE synthetic Approach. those diffICultiES aSsociAteD with tHe ComPlicaTed and BIzaRre foRm of meChAnical ModelS (DUhem 1980, 68-69; PoinCaré 1901, ix; Chiappin 57-58) arise from The demAnd of MakIng conjecTurES abOut, or simuLatiNg, the partiCulAr mEchanIsmS UnderLyinG ThE phYSical PhenOMena being STuDieD. nOtHing similar IS DOne In the AnaLYtic apProaCh: there is no demand TO construct a mecHaniCAL moDel. tHe taSk Is to construct tHe aLgEBRaic equaTiOns of the kinEtic and pOtENtial Energy Of the sYstem anD TO aPPly theM to LAgrAnge's equaTioNs. tHe constRuCtIOn of thEse eQuAtions EmployS The mEASurable quantitieS of obSERvablE PhySical PhEnomena. tHe agReement betWeen the empiRical lAws oF
 mechanistic program broug ht into ev idenc e t his  m etho dolo gical truth: " i f aphenomena has a comple te me ch a nica l  e xplan ation,i tw i llha ve  an  i n fi nityofotherswhich give  an  e qually gooda cc ount for a llthe particul ari ties r ev eal e d byexp erime nt" (P o incaré  1901, vi ii ) . This methodo l o gi calconclusion contai n st he core of Poi ncaré' sp ra g m ati st/ convention al ist v i ew, the pr i n c ipl e  of the under determinati o n o f phys ic alt heoryby da ta (Pa reto 1909,31-3 6), which  Duhem ' s theor y  of sci ence s tri ves  tom ak eill eg i tim a te . S o  wh at one m us tunder stan d b y  a m ech anic al ex planation ofphy sica l  ph enome na is  the  p ossib ilityof co ns tructing an ind epen dent syst emof  eq ua tions made u p o f k inetic(T) ene r gyan d p ot ential (U) energyan d ce rtain nu mberso fpa r ameters(g ene rali z e d coo rdin a te s). Assu ming t h at  o ne canco nstruc tsuc h e quati o ns,one ca n always , acc o rding to Poinc a ré's analysis of M ax w ell' s a nalytic met hod, dete rmin e  m ass e s (hi ddenor vi s ible) and their gen er alized  coor dinates in su ch a way t h a t  the kin etic an d  potential ene rgy o f this sys t em of ma ssesis equal  to thato f  the kin eti c ( T)and p ot ential (U) en e r gy a pp earinginLagrang e's  eq uat ion s(Poincaré  1901, v ii i) .Fr omthese conditio ns  an dfro m Lag r ange's  equa tion  o ne dra ws thee qu a t ions  f or  the  mo ti on of  the sys tem. If  these eq uat i onsar eidentic al with the e mp irical law scon struct e d  by theexperimental method, th e n, acco rdi ng to  Max well, "we  sh all ha vep rovedthat e lectr om agn e t ic ph e n om ena  a re capable o f a  mech an ical  explic ation" (Duhem 1980 ,  70 ). Duhem ques tio ns t h a tthe s ec ond it i ons p rove that a phy sical phen om e no n is susce p tib le  to a m echanic al ex p licatio n. All on e has her eis a m ech anical int erpretat ion or an a logy. Du hem's  An alysis  a ndObjec tionst o t he An alytic  A pproac h toMe chanicis m Duhem begins his crit icismof th e a nalytic a ppr o ach  by quest ioni ng the ide nti tybetwe ena nalyt ic m e ch ani c s and  mec h anical ex p la nat i o n.  First, tho u g h , i t sho uld be rec alle d that, with this approach, atte mpts a remad e  toav oid the aforem ent io n e d diffic ul ties arisin g from t he synth etic a pproac h. Thos e di f ficult iesass ociated w ith  t h e compl ic at e d andbiza rr e form  of me c hani c a l models (Duhem1980, 6 8-69; Poi ncaré  1 901, ix ;  Chi appin 57-5 8) arise fr om the  dem and o f makin gconjec tur es  about, or simulatin g, th e parti cu larmec hanism s un d e rlyin g th ephy sical phe n o me n abe i ngstud ied.No thin g similar is doneint he anal yt ica p proach :  t h e re is no d ema nd to c onstruct a mech a ni c al mo del. T he tas k is to con st ruct th e a l g ebraic eq uations o f  th ekine tic andpo tent ia l e ne rgy of the syst em and t o applyt h em toLag r ange ' s equa ti ons. The con struc ti o n of th e s e e quation s  em plo ysthemea sura b le quantities of observa blephysi c alpheno mena.  T he agree m entbetweent he empiricallaws of
 mechanistic_program brought_into evidence this methodological_truth: "if_a_phenomena has_a_complete mechanical explanation,_it will have_an infinity of others_which give an_equally_good account for all the particularities revealed by experiment" (Poincaré 1901, viii). This methodological_conclusion_contains the_core_of_Poincaré's pragmatist/conventionalist view, the principle_of the underdetermination of physical_theory by_data (Pareto 1909, 31-36), which Duhem's theory of_science_strives to make_illegitimate. So what one must understand by a mechanical_explanation of physical phenomena is the_possibility of constructing_an_independent_system of equations made_up of kinetic (T) energy and_potential (U) energy and certain numbers_of parameters (generalized coordinates). Assuming that one_can construct such equations, one can_always, according to Poincaré's analysis_of Maxwell's_analytic method, determine masses (hidden_or visible) and_their generalized_coordinates in such_a way that the kinetic and_potential energy of_this system of masses is equal_to_that of the_kinetic_(T)_and potential_(U) energy appearing_in_Lagrange's equations_(Poincaré_1901, viii). From these conditions and_from_Lagrange's equation one draws the equations for_the motion of the_system._If these equations are_identical with the empirical laws_constructed by the experimental method, then,_according to_Maxwell, "we_shall have proved that electromagnetic phenomena are capable of a mechanical_explication" (Duhem 1980, 70). Duhem questions_that these conditions prove_that a_physical_phenomenon is susceptible_to_a mechanical_explication. All one has here is a_mechanical interpretation_or analogy. Duhem's Analysis and Objections_to the Analytic Approach_to_Mechanicism Duhem begins his criticism of_the analytic approach by questioning the_identity between analytic mechanics and_mechanical_explanation._First, though, it should be_recalled that, with this approach, attempts_are made to_avoid the aforementioned difficulties arising from the_synthetic_approach. Those difficulties associated with the_complicated_and bizarre form of mechanical models_(Duhem_1980,_68-69; Poincaré 1901, ix; Chiappin_57-58) arise from the demand of_making conjectures about, or simulating, the particular mechanisms underlying_the physical phenomena_being studied. Nothing similar is_done_in_the analytic approach: there is no demand to construct a_mechanical model._The task is_to construct the algebraic equations of the kinetic and potential_energy of the system and to apply_them to Lagrange's equations. The construction of these equations employs the_measurable quantities of observable physical phenomena. The agreement_between the empirical laws of