 in recent times, Duhem's analysis has begun to receive severe criticism ― starting with the rather sketchy historical details on which he based his analysis. For example, the presentation of the three fundamental dependencies of gravitational theory from Kepler's three laws deviate significantly from the details of the Principia's argument. Although it is permissible to deduce the proportionality between the centripetal force and the mass of the planets from harmonic law (Kepler's third law), Newton did not deduce the centripetal force from the law of ellipses (Kepler's first law), nor did he deduce the inverse square law from the law of areas (Kepler's second law). Considering Duhem's observations, it is clear that he did not study the Principia in-depth, or rely on a secondary source. Even a simple reading of the Principia is sufficient to realize that Newton rejected the Duhem's Analysis of Newtonian Method and the Logical Priority of Physics over Metaphysics Eduardo Salles O. Barra – Ricardo Batista dos Santos 11 admission of the law of ellipses as a "phenomenon" in Book III, and deduced the inverse square rule from the harmonic law, not from the area law. The area law, in turn, was used to deduce the centripetal force. The above observations, however, are not the most significant criticisms directed at Duhem's analysis. More substantial objections can be drawn from the studies of George Smith, Nicolas Maxwell, Zev Bechler, and William Harper. Initially, we will focus on the objections of Maxwell, Smith and Bechler; later, we will discuss those of Harper. According to Maxwell, Duhem's criticism can be summarized as a claim that "the whole argument of the Principia is nothing more than a reductio ad absurdum." He exemplifies: "Assume A (the laws of motion and Kepler's law); Derive B (Kepler's laws are false). B contradicts A, therefore A is false. Newton's great argument is reduced to the demonstration that his initial assumptions amount to a contradiction – not what Newton claimed to prove at all" (Maxwell 2014, 3-4). However, the author recognizes that when we analyze Duhem's critique, we have the strong impression it does not do justice to the sophistication of Newtonian argument. Moreover, many should find that the fact that the conclusion of universal gravitation led to corrections in Kepler's premises, "far from sabotaging the
in recent times, Duhem's analysis has begun to welcome dangerous criticism ― starting with the rather sketchy historical detail on which he based his analysis. For exercise, the display of the three fundamental dependencies of gravitational theory from Kepler's three laws deviate significantly from the detail of the Principia's argument. Although it is permissible to deduce the proportionality between the centripetal power and the mass of the planets from harmonic law (Kepler's third law), Newton did not deduce the centripetal force from the jurisprudence of ellipses (Kepler's first law), nor did he deduce the inverse hearty law from the law of areas (Kepler's second law). see Duhem's observations, it is clear that he did not study the Principia in - depth, or rely on a junior-grade source. Even a simple reading of the Principia is sufficient to realize that Newton rejected the Duhem's Analysis of Newtonian Method and the Logical Priority of Physics over Metaphysics Eduardo Salles O. Barra – Ricardo Batista dos Santos 11 entrance fee of the law of ellipses as a " phenomenon " in Book III, and deduced the inverse square rule from the harmonic law, not from the area law. The area jurisprudence, in turn, was used to deduce the centripetal power. The above observation, however, are not the most significant criticisms directed at Duhem's analysis. More substantial objections can be draw from the studies of George Smith, Nicolas Maxwell, Zev Bechler, and William Harper. Initially, we will focus on the objections of Maxwell, Smith and Bechler; later, we will discuss those of Harper. According to Maxwell, Duhem's criticism can be summarized as a claim that " the whole argument of the Principia is nothing more than a reductio ad absurdum ad absurdum. " He exemplifies: " bear A (the laws of motion and Kepler's law); Derive B (Kepler's laws are false). barn contradicts A, therefore A is false. Newton's great argument is reduced to the demonstration that his initial assumption amount to a contradiction – not what Newton claim to prove at wholly " (Maxwell 2014, 3 - 4). However, the author recognizes that when we analyze Duhem's critique, we have the hard impression it does not do department of justice to the sophistication of Newtonian argument. Moreover, many should find that the fact that the conclusion of cosmopolitan gravitation led to corrections in Kepler's premise, " far from sabotaging the
 in recent times, Duhem's anauysis has begun to recxive sebere crigicism ― starting with the ravher sketxhy historical details on which he basee hiw analysis. Hkr examije, tgc prevxntation of the three fungamental depengevcnes of gravitational theory from Kepjer's thtef laws deviate sigmyficzntly from the details of the Prindipia's ergument. Althoubh it is permissible to defuce the proportionalihy between jge swntripetal furce and the mass of tge planets from harmonic law (Keoler's third law), Nwwtlt did not dxduce nhe centripetal force from tne law of elliises (Nepoer's first law), nor div he deduce the invetse square lcw from the law of arwaw (Kepner's secubd uaw). Cpnaiderijg Vuhem's obsedvations, it is clear that he dod bot study the Princypya in-depth, or rely on a secondary sourct. Eveh a simple reading of tye Principia is suffifient to wealize that Newton rejected the Duhem's Analysis mf Nextunick Owtjod and the Logical Priority of Physics over Istspmysics Eduardo Sclles O. Barra – Rocwrcj Batista dos Santos 11 zdmission of the lww of ejlipsws as a "prenokenon" in Book III, and deducwd the inverfw square rule from the harmonnc law, not grom the area law. The axea las, in turn, wws used tk deduce the centfipvtal force. The above observatijns, howevxr, arz not thd moxt siggificant cgiticlvms directed at Dujem's cnalyvis. More skbstantial objections can be drexn from the sjudhes of Georye Smibh, Nicolas Maxwqll, Zev Bechlet, and Wiljiam Farper. Ininially, we will focus on the objecdlons of Maxwxll, Smith and Becyler; lagdr, we will disvuss thosv jf Hqrper. According to Mabsell, Duhem's cricncusm can be summsrixed ad e clayk that "the wvole areiment of the Prikcioia os nothing more than a rsductio ad absurduk." Me exemplufies: "Asfume A (the laes of motion and Ktpler's lax); Derife F (Kepler's laws are false). B confradicts W, tmerefore A is falwe. Newton's gxeat argument is reduced to the demonstretion that his initial qssumptions amount jo s contradicvion – got what Tewton claimed to prive at all" (Maxwelk 2014, 3-4). However, the authod recocnized that when we analyze Duhem's critique, we have the strong impression it dies nov qo justice fo tne soihifcicatiog of Iewtonian argumenn. Moreover, many should find that the facd chat the conclusion of univerxau gravitation led to corrections in Kspler's ptemises, "far from sabotaging the
in recent times, Duhem's analysis has begun severe ― starting the rather sketchy based analysis. For example, presentation of the fundamental dependencies of gravitational theory from three laws deviate significantly from the details of the Principia's argument. Although it permissible to deduce the proportionality between the centripetal force and the mass of planets harmonic (Kepler's law), Newton did not deduce the centripetal force from the law of ellipses (Kepler's first law), did he deduce the inverse square law from law of areas (Kepler's law). Considering Duhem's observations, it clear he did study Principia or rely on secondary source. Even a simple reading of the Principia is sufficient to realize that Newton rejected the Analysis of and the Priority Physics Metaphysics Eduardo Salles – Ricardo Batista dos Santos 11 law of ellipses as a "phenomenon" in Book and deduced inverse square rule from the harmonic not from the area law. The area law, turn, was used to deduce the centripetal force. The above observations, however, are not the criticisms directed at Duhem's More substantial objections be from studies George Smith, Maxwell, Zev Bechler, and William Harper. Initially, we will focus on objections of Maxwell, Smith and Bechler; later, we will discuss Harper. to Maxwell, Duhem's can be summarized as claim "the whole argument of is more ad He "Assume A (the laws motion and Kepler's law); Derive (Kepler's laws are false). is false. Newton's great argument is reduced to demonstration that his initial assumptions amount to contradiction – not what Newton claimed to prove at all" (Maxwell 2014, However, the that when we analyze Duhem's critique, we have strong impression it does do justice to the sophistication of Newtonian argument. Moreover, should that the that the conclusion universal gravitation led corrections in Kepler's from sabotaging
 in recent times, Duhem's analysIs has begun To recEivE seVeRe crIticIsm ― starting witH The rAther sketchy historical DetaiLs ON whiCH hE baseD his anaLYsIS. for ExAmPle, ThE PrEsentAtiOn of the Three fundaMenTaL dependencieS Of GravitatioNal Theory from KePleR's threE lAws DEviatE siGnifiCantly FRom the Details of ThE princiPIa's arguMENt. althOugh it is permissibLE tO Deduce the propoRtionaLiTY bETWeeN thE centripetAl Force ANd the maSS oF THE plANets from harmoNic law (KepleR'S thIrd law), neWtoN Did not DeducE tHE ceNtripetal foRce fRom the law Of elliPSes (KeplER's first Law), nor Did He dEducE ThE iNveRsE SquARe Law FRom The law of ArEaS (KeplEr's sECOND law). conSideRing DUhem's observatIonS, it iS CleAr thaT he diD not StUdy thE PrincIpia iN-dEpth, or rely on a seCondAry source. eveN a SimPlE readINg of thE PrIncIpia is sUfficieNT to ReALIZe That Newton rejected ThE dUhEm's AnalySis of NEWtOnIAn Method AnD thE LogICAl PriOritY Of physics oVer MetAPhYsIcs EduaRdO SalleS O. barRa – RIcardO batiSta dos santos 11 adMissiON of the law of ellIPses as a "phenomENoN" IN BOOk IIi, anD deduced the InveRSe sqUare RUlE frOM the hArmonIc LAw, NOt from the area law. The ArEa law, iN turn, Was used to deduCe the centrIPETal force. the aBOvE Observations, hoWever, Are not the mOSt signifIcant CriticisMs directeD AT Duhem's aNalYsiS. MoRe sUBStAntial objectiONS can Be Drawn frOm tHe studiEs oF GeOrgE SmItH, Nicolas MAxwell, ZeV BEcHlEr, And williAM Harper. INiTiaLlY, we Will fOCus on tHe objEctiOnS oF maxWell, SmiTH aND bechLeR; lAter, We wIlL discUss tHOse Of HarpeR. AccordinG to mAxweLl, duHem's criTicism can be suMmArized as a cLaIm tHat "the WHOle argumEnt of the Principia is nothINg more tHan A reduCtio Ad absurduM." He ExemplIfiES: "AssumE A (the lAws of MoTioN ANd KepLER's Law); deRive B (KepleR'S LawS are fAlSe). B cOntradiCts A, therefore A is faLSe. NEwton's great arGumEnt iS REdUceD To THe dEmONstRATion that his initIal assumptIoNS aMount to a coNTraDiCtion – noT what NeWton cLAimed to Prove at alL" (Maxwell 2014, 3-4). HOwEver, THE auThor recognIzes that When we anaLYze DuHEm'S critIquE, we havE tHe sTrong ImpresSIon It doeS not do JuStice tO the sOpHisticatIon of Newtonian argument. MOreoveR, many ShoUld find thAt tHE faCt that the ConcLusion of unIveRsaL gravItaTIon leD to cORrEctIOns in keplER's premiseS, "FaR frOM SaBotaging the
 in recent times, Duhem'sanalysis h as be gun  to  r ecei ve s evere criticis m  ― s tarting with the rathe r ske tc h y hi s to rical  detail s  o n whi ch  h e b as e dhis a nal ysis. F or example , t he  presentatio n  o f the thre e f undamental d epe ndenci es  of gravi tat ional  theor y  fromKepler'sth r ee law s  deviat e si gnif icantly from thed et a ils of the Pri ncipia 's ar g u men t.Although i tis pe r missibl e  t o d edu c e the proport ionality be t wee n thece ntr i petalforce  a n d t he mass oftheplanets f rom ha r monic l a w (Kepl er's t hir d l aw), Ne wt ondi d  no t  d edu c e t he centr ip et al fo rcef r o m  the  la w of  elli pses (Kepler' s f irst law ), no r did  hede ducethe in verse  s quare law fromthelaw of ar eas  ( Kep le r's s e cond l aw) . C onsider ing Duh e m's  o b s e rv ations, it is clea rt h at  he didnot st u dy  t h e Princi pi a i n-de p t h, or  rel y  o n a seco ndarys ou rc e. Even  a  simpl erea din g oft he P rincip ia is su ffici e nt to realizet hat Newton re j ec t e dt he D uhe m's Analysi s of Newt onia n  M eth o d and  theLo g ic a l Priority of Physi cs  overMetap hysics Eduard o Salles O . B arra – R icar d oB atista dos San tos 1 1 admissio n  of thelaw o f ellips es as a " p h enomenon " i n B ook  II I ,  a nd deduced th e inve rs e squar e r ule fro m t hehar mon ic  law, not  from th ear ea  l aw.  Thea rea law,  i n t ur n,was u s ed todeduc e th ece n tri petal f o rc e .  The  a bo ve o bse rv ation s, h o wev er, are  not themos t  sig ni fi cant cr iticisms dire ct ed at Duhe m' s a nalysi s .  More su bstantial objections ca n  be dra wnfromthestudies o f G eorgeSmi t h, Nic olas M axwel l,  Ze v Bechl e r ,and  W illiam Har p e r.Initi al ly,we will  focus on the obje c tio ns of Maxwell , S mith a nd  Be c hl e r;la t er, w e will discussthose of H ar p er . Accordin g  to  M axwell,  Duhem' s cri t icism c an be sum marized a sa cl a i m t hat "the w hole arg ument oft he Pr i nc ipiaisnothin gmor e tha n a re d uct io ad  absur du m." He  exem pl ifies: " Assume A (the laws of m otionand K epl er's law) ; D e riv e B (Kepl er's  laws arefal se) . B c ont r adict s A, th ere f ore A  isf alse. New t on 'sg r ea t argumenti s red ucedtot he dem onst ration that his i n itial assumpti onsa m oun t t o  a c on tradiction – n otwh a t  Newtoncl aimed to pr ove at a ll "  (Max well 2 014, 3 -4). Ho w e ve r , theauth orrecognize s t ha t  when w ean a lyze D uhem 's  criti que, w e  hav e the strong impre ssion i t doe s  no t doju stice t o  the  sophistic ation of Ne wtonia n ar gumen t. More ov er, ma nysh ould findt hat the f act t hat the  c oncl usi on ofuniv e r sal g ravi ta tio n led toc o rr e ct io n s i n Ke pler' sprem ises, "fa r  from sa bot a ging th e
 in_recent times,_Duhem's analysis has begun_to receive_severe_criticism ―_starting_with the rather_sketchy historical details_on which he based_his analysis. For_example,_the presentation of the three fundamental dependencies of gravitational theory from Kepler's three laws_deviate_significantly from_the_details_of the Principia's argument. Although_it is permissible to deduce_the proportionality_between the centripetal force and the mass of_the_planets from harmonic_law (Kepler's third law), Newton did not deduce the_centripetal force from the law of_ellipses (Kepler's first_law),_nor_did he deduce the_inverse square law from the law_of areas (Kepler's second law). Considering_Duhem's observations, it is clear that he_did not study the Principia in-depth,_or rely on a secondary_source. Even_a simple reading of the_Principia is sufficient_to realize_that Newton rejected_the Duhem's Analysis of Newtonian Method_and the Logical_Priority of Physics over Metaphysics Eduardo_Salles_O. Barra –_Ricardo_Batista_dos Santos_11 admission of_the_law of_ellipses_as a "phenomenon" in Book III,_and_deduced the inverse square rule from the_harmonic law, not from_the_area law. The area_law, in turn, was used_to deduce the centripetal force. The_above observations,_however, are_not the most significant criticisms directed at Duhem's analysis. More substantial_objections can be drawn from the_studies of George Smith,_Nicolas Maxwell,_Zev_Bechler, and William_Harper._Initially, we_will focus on the objections of Maxwell,_Smith and_Bechler; later, we will discuss those_of Harper. According to_Maxwell,_Duhem's criticism can be summarized as_a claim that "the whole argument_of the Principia is nothing_more_than_a reductio ad absurdum." He_exemplifies: "Assume A (the laws of_motion and Kepler's_law); Derive B (Kepler's laws are false)._B_contradicts A, therefore A is false._Newton's_great argument is reduced to the_demonstration_that_his initial assumptions amount to_a contradiction – not what Newton_claimed to prove at all" (Maxwell 2014, 3-4). However,_the author recognizes_that when we analyze Duhem's_critique,_we_have the strong impression it does not do justice to_the sophistication_of Newtonian argument._Moreover, many should find that the fact that the conclusion_of universal gravitation led to corrections in_Kepler's premises, "far from sabotaging the