 but they are very fast and general. Moreover, they are presented with a focus on the philosophy of science and not on the historiography of science, which is the scope that interests me. In this sequence, I try to provide some material to help bring Duhem closer to the new historiography of science, from the characterization of historiographic change, as expounded by Kuhn. From the Older to the New Historiography of Science: Duhem's Spot When Kuhn recognizes an ongoing historiographic revolution in SSR  he exhibits the state of change in the historical perspective. Traditionally, the history of science was conceived as the discipline that recorded the successive increments of scientific technique and knowledge while at the same time registering the obstacles that have inhibited their accumulation. Under this conception, according to Kuhn (1996 [1962], 2), the historian had two main tasks: to "determine by what man and at what point in time each contemporary scientific fact, law, and theory was discovered or invented" and to "describe and explain the congeries of error, myth, and superstition that have inhibited the more rapid accumulation of the constituents of the modern science text". This perspective is particularly found in science textbooks, in which discarded theories are considered unscientific14 and what is relevant is the identification of the individual contributions, the place and the date they occurred.15 In the ongoing historiographic revolution – "still in its early stages" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3) – a group of historians have begun to put together other kinds of questions. "Rather than seeking the permanent contributions of an older science to our present vantage, they attempt to display the historical integrity of that science in its own time" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3). Kuhn's example is about the study of Galileo's contributions. Some historians no longer sought Galilean contributions in relation to modern science, but sought to understand it in their own context, that is, in "the relationship between his views and those of his group, i.e., his teachers, contemporaries, and immediate successors in the sciences". And, as says Kuhn, they also insisted upon studying the conceptions of these thinkers from a viewpoint that is very different from that of modern science, that gave those conceptions "the maximum internal coherence and the closest possible fit to nature" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3).16 In doing so, they presented works that provided a completely divergent image of
but they are very fast and general. Moreover, they are presented with a stress on the doctrine of skill and not on the historiography of science, which is the scope that interests me. In this succession, I try to provide some material to help oneself bring Duhem closer to the fresh historiography of science, from the characterization of historiographic variety, as expounded by Kuhn. From the Older to the New Historiography of Science: Duhem's Spot When Kuhn recognizes an ongoing historiographic rotation in SSR   he exhibits the state of variety in the historical position. Traditionally, the history of skill was conceived as the discipline that recorded the successive increments of scientific proficiency and knowledge while at the same clock time registering the obstacle that have inhibited their accumulation. Under this conception, according to Kuhn (1996 [ 1962 ], 2), the historian had two chief tasks: to " determine by what man and at what point in time each contemporary scientific fact, law, and theory was discovered or invented " and to " describe and explain the congeries of error, myth, and superstition that have inhibited the more rapid accumulation of the constituents of the mod science text ". This position is peculiarly found in science textbooks, in which discarded theory are considered unscientific14 and what is relevant is the identification of the individual contributions, the place and the date they occurred.15 In the ongoing historiographic rotation – " still in its early stages " (Kuhn 1996 [ 1962 ], 3) – a group of historians have begun to put together other kinds of questions. " Rather than seeking the permanent contributions of an old skill to our present advantage, they try to display the historical integrity of that science in its own meter " (Kuhn 1996 [ 1962 ], 3). Kuhn's example is about the study of Galileo's contributions. Some historian no longer sought Galilean contribution in relation to modern skill, but sought to understand it in their own context, that is, in " the relationship between his views and those of his group, i.e., his teachers, coevals, and immediate successor in the sciences ". And, as say Kuhn, they also insist upon studying the conceptions of these thinker from a viewpoint that is very unlike from that of modern science, that gave those conception " the maximum internal coherence and the closest possible fit to nature " (Kuhn 1996 [ 1962 ], 3).16 In make so, they presented plant that provided a completely divergent image of
 buh they are very fast and general. Moreovgr, they ere preaented wkth a focus on the philosophb of sciebce and not on the hisgoriograpjy of scuenct, which is the scope that intersdts kx. In this sequekce, I try tm provide some mxtzrial to help bring Duhem closer to ehe new hlstoriography jf sbiqnce, from the characterization of histkriograkhic change, as exppunded by Kuhn. From the Olfer ho the New Historilgraphy of Wciegxe: Duhem's Sput When Kuhn recognizea an ongoing historiographic rexolutnon in SSR  hw edvibits the wtate of change ik the hhstoricsl perspective. Tredituonally, the history oh science was conceided as tha biscipline that recoreee the sucwesskce kncdekehts of scmentific tedhnique and knowledge while at trv same time rsgistewigg the obstacles that have inhibited thtir adcumulation. Under this xonception, according jo Kuhn (1996 [1962], 2), the historian had two main tasks: to "determine by what oan akd ag wjat point in time each contemporary scientifis fscn, law, and theory cas discovered ot lnfgnted" and to "dgscribe ans explain the congfries os errir, myth, agd siperstition that have inhibuted the morv rapid accumulation oy the consticuents of tne modern science text". Chis psrspective ls partichuarly found in sziekce textbooks, in which discarqed theormes axe consiaerec unscyentific14 ajd what is relevant is tje idgntifiwation of hhe individual contributions, thx place and tne dane they oecurrec.15 In the ongoyng historiogrcphic rerolutiun – "still pn its eacly stages" (Kthn 1996 [1962], 3) – a grogk of historiais have bqgun to put togdgher other kincs of questions. "Ratyer than seeking tme petmznent contributnubs of an older xcidncq no puw present vandage, thdu attdmpt to disilah thr historical integridy or that science in otf own tine" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3). Kuhn's examlle is about the suudy oh Galiueo's vonjributions. Some historians no lknger souhht Galilean cogtrinutijns in relction to modern science, but sought to unverstand it in their owb context, that is, iu "uhe relationsiip beeween his views and those of yis group, i.e., his ueachers, contemporaries, and ikmediwte successors in the sciences". And, as says Kuhn, they also insisted upon srudyinj ehe conceptjons of tvefz thinkqrs hrum a viewpoint tnat is very different from that of modesn science, that gave those conveotions "the mabimum internal coherence and the closest possible fit to nature" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3).16 In doing so, then presentwd wodks that pcovided a completely diveryent inage of
but they are very fast and general. are with a on the philosophy the of science, which the scope that me. In this sequence, I try provide some material to help bring Duhem closer to the new historiography of from the characterization of historiographic change, as expounded by Kuhn. From the Older the Historiography Science: Spot When Kuhn recognizes an ongoing historiographic revolution in SSR he exhibits the state of change the historical perspective. Traditionally, the history of science conceived as the discipline recorded the successive increments of technique knowledge while the time the obstacles that inhibited their accumulation. Under this conception, according to Kuhn (1996 [1962], 2), the historian had two main to "determine man and what in each contemporary scientific and theory was discovered or invented" and explain the congeries of error, myth, and that have the more rapid accumulation of the of the modern science text". This perspective is found in science textbooks, in which discarded theories are considered unscientific14 and what is relevant identification of the individual the place and date occurred.15 the historiographic revolution "still in its early stages" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3) – a of historians have begun to put together other kinds of than the permanent contributions an older science to present they attempt to display integrity that own (Kuhn [1962], 3). Kuhn's example about the study of Galileo's Some historians no longer to modern science, but sought to understand it their own context, that is, in "the between his views and those of his group, i.e., his teachers, contemporaries, immediate successors sciences". And, as says Kuhn, they also insisted studying the conceptions of thinkers from a viewpoint that is very different from of science, that those conceptions "the internal coherence and closest possible fit (Kuhn 1996 3).16 doing works that provided a completely divergent of
 but they are very fast and geneRal. MoreoveR, they Are PreSeNted With A focus on the phiLOsopHy of science and not on the HistoRiOGrapHY oF scieNce, whicH Is THE scOpE tHat InTErEsts mE. In This seqUence, I try tO prOvIde some materIAl To help brinG DuHem closer to tHe nEw histOrIogRAphy oF scIence, From thE CharacTerizatioN oF HistorIOgraphiC CHaNge, aS expounded by Kuhn. FROm THe Older to the NeW HistoRiOGrAPHy oF ScIence: Duhem'S SPot WhEN Kuhn reCOgNIZEs aN Ongoing historIographic reVOluTion in sSr  he EXhibitS the sTaTE of Change in the HistOrical perSpectiVE. TraditIOnally, tHe histOry Of sCienCE wAs ConCeIVed AS tHe dISciPline thaT rEcOrded The sUCCESsivE inCremEnts oF scientific teChnIque ANd kNowleDge whIle aT tHe samE time rEgistErIng the obstacles That Have inhibIteD tHeiR aCcumuLAtion. UNdeR thIs concePtion, acCOrdInG TO kuHn (1996 [1962], 2), the historian had tWo MAIn Tasks: to "dEtermiNE bY wHAt man and At WhaT poiNT In timE eacH CoNtemporaRy scieNTiFiC fact, laW, aNd theoRy Was DisCoverED or iNventeD" and to "deScribE And explain the cONgeries of erroR, MyTH, AnD SupeRstItion that haVe inHIbitEd thE MoRe rAPid acCumulAtIOn OF the constituents of tHe Modern ScienCe text". This perSpective is PARTicularlY fouND iN Science textbooKs, in wHich discarDEd theoriEs are ConsiderEd unscienTIFic14 and whAt iS reLevAnt IS ThE identificatiON Of thE iNdividuAl cOntribuTioNs, tHe pLacE aNd the date They occuRrEd.15 in ThE onGoing HIstoriogRaPhiC rEvoLutioN – "Still iN its eArly StAgES" (KuHn 1996 [1962], 3) – a grouP Of HIStorIaNs Have BegUn To put TogeTHer Other kiNds of quesTioNS. "RatHeR tHan seekIng the permaneNt ContributiOnS of An oldeR SCience to Our present vantage, they atTEmpt to dIspLay thE hisTorical inTegRity of ThaT SciencE in its Own tiMe" (kuhN 1996 [1962], 3). kUhn's eXAMpLe iS aBout the stuDY Of GAlileO's ContRibutioNs. Some historians no LOngEr sought GalilEan ContRIBuTioNS iN RelAtIOn tO MOdern science, but Sought to unDeRStAnd it in theIR owN cOntext, tHat is, in "The reLAtionshIp between His views aNd ThosE OF hiS group, i.e., hiS teacherS, contempoRAries, ANd ImmedIatE succeSsOrs In the SciencES". AnD, as saYs Kuhn, ThEy also InsisTeD upon stuDying the conceptions of thEse thiNkers FroM a viewpoiNt tHAt iS very diffErenT from that oF moDerN scieNce, THat gaVe thOSe ConCEptioNs "thE Maximum inTErNal COHeRence and the CLOSesT possIblE Fit to nAturE" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3).16 In doing so, theY Presented works That PROviDed A CompLeTely divergent iMagE oF
 but they are very fast an d general.  More ove r,th ey a re p resented witha  foc us on the philosophy o f sci en c e an d  n ot on  the hi s to r i ogr ap hy  of  s c ie nce,whi ch is t he scope t hat  i nterests me. In  this sequ enc e, I try topro vide s om e m a teria l t o hel p brin g  Duhem  closer t ot he new histori o g ra phyof science, fromt he characterizati on ofhi s to r i ogr aph ic change,  a s exp o unded b y  K u h n . F r om the Olderto the NewH ist oriogr ap hyo f Scie nce:Du h em' s Spot When  Kuh n recogni zes an ongoing histori ograph icrev olut i on  i n S SR  he ex hib i tsthe stat eof  chan ge i n t h e hi sto rica l per spective. Tra dit iona l ly,  thehisto ry o fscien ce was  conc ei ved as the disc ipli ne that r eco rd edth e suc c essive  in cre ments o f scien t ifi ct e c hn ique and knowledge  w h i le  at thesame t i me  r e gisterin gthe  obs t a clesthat ha ve inhib ited t h ei raccumul at ion. U nd erthi s con c epti on, ac cordingto Ku h n (1996 [1962] ,  2), the hist o ri a n  h a d tw o m ain tasks:to " d eter mine by  wh a t man  andat wh a t point in time eac hcontem porar y scientificfact, law, a n d theory  was di s covered or inv ented " and to " d escribeand e xplain t he conger i e s of err or,  my th,  an d su perstition th a t  hav einhibit edthe mor e r api d a ccu mu lation of  the con st it ue nt s o f the modern s ci enc etex t". T h is per spect iveis  p a rti cularly fo u n d in  s ci ence  te xt books , in whi ch disc arded the ori e s ar eco nsidere d unscientifi c1 4 and what  i s r elevan t is the i dentification of the in d ividual  co ntrib utio ns, the p lac e andthe date t hey oc curre d. 15I n  theo n go ing  h istoriogra p h icrevol ut ion– "stil l in its early sta g es"  (Kuhn 1996 [ 196 2],3 )  –  ag ro u p o fh ist o r ians have begun  to put to ge t he r other ki n dsof  questi ons. "R ather than se eking the  permanen tcont r i but ions of an  older s cience to our p r es ent v ant age, t he y a ttemp t to d i spl ay th e hist or ical i ntegr it y of tha t science in its own ti me" (K uhn 1 996  [1962],3). Kuh n's examp le i s about th e s tud y ofGal i leo's  con t ri but i ons.Some historian s  n o l o n ge r sought Ga l i l ean  cont rib u tionsin r elation to modern science, but s ough t tound e rsta nd  it in their o wnco n t ext, tha tis, in "the  relatio ns h ip be tweenhis vi ews and t ho s e of h is g rou p, i.e.,his  t e achers,  c on t empora ries ,and im mediat e  suc c e ssors in the sci ences " .  And, assaysKu hn, the y  als o insisted  upon study ing th e co ncept ions of  t hese t hin ke rs from av iewpointthatis very  d iffe ren t from  tha t of mo dern  s cie nce, that g av e  t ho s e c once ption s"the  maximumi nternalcoh e rence a nd  th e closes t  p o s sible fittonatur e "  (Kuhn 199 6  [19 6 2] ,  3).1 6 In d oing s o, they pre se nted wo rks t hat provi ded a com p let el y di vergentim ageof 
 but_they are_very fast and general._Moreover, they_are_presented with_a_focus on the_philosophy of science_and not on the_historiography of science,_which_is the scope that interests me. In this sequence, I try to provide some_material_to help_bring_Duhem_closer to the new historiography_of science, from the characterization_of historiographic_change, as expounded by Kuhn. From the Older_to_the New Historiography_of Science: Duhem's Spot When Kuhn recognizes an ongoing_historiographic revolution in SSR  he_exhibits the state_of_change_in the historical perspective._Traditionally, the history of science was_conceived as the discipline that recorded_the successive increments of scientific technique and_knowledge while at the same time_registering the obstacles that have_inhibited their_accumulation. Under this conception, according_to Kuhn (1996_[1962], 2),_the historian had_two main tasks: to "determine by_what man and_at what point in time each_contemporary_scientific fact, law,_and_theory_was discovered_or invented" and_to_"describe and_explain_the congeries of error, myth, and_superstition_that have inhibited the more rapid accumulation_of the constituents of_the_modern science text". This_perspective is particularly found in_science textbooks, in which discarded theories_are considered_unscientific14 and_what is relevant is the identification of the individual contributions, the_place and the date they occurred.15_In the ongoing historiographic_revolution –_"still_in its early_stages"_(Kuhn 1996_[1962], 3) – a group of historians_have begun_to put together other kinds of_questions. "Rather than seeking_the_permanent contributions of an older science_to our present vantage, they attempt_to display the historical integrity_of_that_science in its own time"_(Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3). Kuhn's example_is about the_study of Galileo's contributions. Some historians no_longer_sought Galilean contributions in relation to_modern_science, but sought to understand it_in_their_own context, that is, in_"the relationship between his views and_those of his group, i.e., his teachers, contemporaries, and_immediate successors in_the sciences". And, as says_Kuhn,_they_also insisted upon studying the conceptions of these thinkers from_a viewpoint_that is very_different from that of modern science, that gave those conceptions_"the maximum internal coherence and the closest_possible fit to nature" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3).16 In doing so,_they presented works that provided a completely divergent_image of