 non-fingo" of Newton and Ampère, the idea that theories can be deduced from experience alone: What then has Newton done to formulate the law of universal gravitation? (...) He took as a hypothesis a proposition of which the experimental laws [the laws of Kepler] placed at the beginning of his theory are only particular consequences, exact or simply approximated. This is the general method employed by all theorists. To formulate their hypotheses, they make a choice of some of the experimental laws, the whole of which must be embraced by their theory; then by means of correction, generalization, and analogy, they compose a proposition of which the laws are exact or simply approximated consequences, and it is this proposition which they assume. (Duhem 1892a, 148) The paths of theoretical invention are multiple and as soon as an hypothesis makes it possible to deduce a wide range of consequences, it is not necessary that it directly symbolizes the experience, although it is its relation to experience which gives it physical meaning. As in the case of the definition of quantities, there is arbitrariness in the choice of hypotheses. Duhem will be particularly concerned with the question of the criteria for choosing hypotheses, combating arbitrariness. A first case of arbitrariness is the one resulting from the conventional choice of the definitions that allow the measurement: In order to represent the same notion, one can in general make use of a multitude of extremely different magnitudes (...) the simple change of the definitions would already lead to changing the hypotheses [which would correspond to translate] the same hypothesis by means of different symbols, and these two statements of the same hypothesis in two different systems of symbols do not constitute any more two different hypotheses than the statements of the same proposition in French, Latin and Greek constitute three different propositions. (Duhem 1892a, 152) This adjustment between definitions and hypotheses reminds one of Poincaré's reflections: Poincaré speaks of the intertranslability of metric geometries and the fact that the choice of a physical geometry (which makes it possible to measure lengths and angles) implies a set of rules of coordination with empirical definitions; Duhem notes that the conventional choice of definitions (which allow measurement) implies adjustments in the hypotheses, but that these adjustments are related to each other as translations in different languages of the same idea. Also their discussions on the concept of temperature (their common sources being 15 On the conventional character of the equality of temperatures in (Poincaré 1892a) see Darrigol (2003, 563). Darrigol shows that
non - fingo " of Newton and Ampère, the idea that theories can be deduced from experience alone: What then has Newton do to give voice the law of universal gravitation? (...) He take as a hypothesis a proposition of which the experimental law [ the law of Kepler ] placed at the beginning of his hypothesis are merely particular consequence, exact or simply approximate. This is the general method employed by all theorists. To formulate their hypothesis, they make a choice of some of the experimental laws, the whole of which must be espouse by their theory; then by means of correction, abstraction, and analogy, they frame a proposition of which the laws are exact or plainly approximated consequences, and it is this proposition which they assume. (Duhem 1892a, 148) The paths of theoretical invention are multiple and as soon as an hypothesis makes it possible to deduce a wide range of consequences, it is not necessary that it directly symbolizes the experience, although it is its relation to experience which gives it physical meaning. As in the event of the definition of quantities, there is flightiness in the option of hypotheses. Duhem will be particularly concerned with the question of the standard for choosing hypotheses, combating arbitrariness. A inaugural case of arbitrariness is the one resulting from the conventional choice of the definitions that leave the measurement: In order to represent the same notion, one can in general make function of a multitude of extremely different magnitudes (...) the simple variety of the definitions would already lead to changing the hypotheses [ which would correspond to translate ] the same hypothesis by means of unlike symbols, and these two statements of the same hypothesis in two different organization of symbols do not appoint any more two different hypothesis than the statements of the like proposition in French, Latin and Greek constitute three different proposal. (Duhem 1892a, 152) This adjustment between definition and hypotheses reminds one of Poincaré's reflections: Poincaré speaks of the intertranslability of metric geometries and the fact that the choice of a physical geometry (which makes it potential to measure lengths and angle) implies a set of rules of coordination with empirical definitions; Duhem notes that the conventional option of definitions (which allow measurement) implies adjustments in the hypotheses, but that these adjustments are related to each other as transformation in unlike linguistic process of the same idea. Also their discussions on the concept of temperature (their common reference being 15 On the conventional character of the equality of temperatures in (Poincaré 1892a) experience Darrigol (2003, 563). Darrigol shows that
 noj-fingo" of Newton and Ampève, the idea that theorixs can ge deducdd from experience alone: Whav thwn haw Newton done to formuuate the paw of ubivecsal gravitation? (...) He took as a mypotkewis a propositlon of whicv the experimettxl laws [the laws of Kepler] placed at ehe begonjing of his thgory swe ohly particular consequences, exact kr simpny approximatrd. This is the general metjod fmployed by all thforists. To dormtoate their hhpotheses, uhzy make a cgoice of some of the experimentxl lacs, the wholg kf fhich must ue embgaced by theiv theorf; then ny means of covrectmon, teneralization, and anelogy, they compose a proposithou of which the laws aee exacj or vimput aoprkxmmafed cojsesuences, ans it is thiw proposition which trvu assume. (Duhsm 1892a, 148) Ehq paths of theoretical invention are muntille and as soon as an htpothesis makes it podsible to deduce a wide range of consequences, it is not newessacy thcb kr firectly symbolizes the experience, although ie ix pts relation to ewperience which gifed oj physical meaving. As ih the case of the fefinityon od quantityes, yhere is arbitrariness in tye choice of yypotheses. Duhem wnll be partieularli concrrned with the question of fhe criteriw for chokring hypotheses, zomnathng arbiufariness. A first sase of acbitrcriness ks tne one resulting from the conventional cjoice ox the defijitions that allow the measuremxit: In order tp sepgesent thz same notion, one cwn in general kake usz of a multitude of extcemely diffewent magnitudad (...) the simplx change jf tye dwfinitiuvs would alreacy lead to changing the hypotheses [whlch wuhld correspond cu translate] the xamd hrpltiesis ty means of giffdrevy symcols, and thcse two statements of the sdme gypothesis in two cinferent sistems of symbols do npt constitute any lore vwo dihfereny hipotheses than the statements or the samf pvoposition in Frekch, Jatin and Yreek constitute three different proposivions. (Duhem 1892a, 152) This adjystment between defnnltions and hbpothefes remings one of Poincaré's rwflections: Poincavé speaks of the intertdanslatilitj of metric geometries and the fact that the choice of a physical geometrt (whici iakes it poasibke to mzasbre lendths end angles) impliex a set of rules of coordinatioi with emphrncal definitions; Duhem notes yhxt the convenjional choice of definitiohs (which allow measurement) implies adjuxtments in the hypothesex, but thqt thsse adjustoents are related yo eack othee as trqnslwtions in difwerrnb languaged of tke same idea. Also their discussiobs on rhf concept of tem'erature (thelr commkn soutces being 15 On ths cohgentiunal charactet of the equaloty of temperatures pn ([oincaré 1892a) see Ezrrigol (2003, 563). Datrigol svows that
non-fingo" of Newton and Ampère, the idea can deduced from alone: What then the of universal gravitation? He took as hypothesis a proposition of which the laws [the laws of Kepler] placed at the beginning of his theory are particular consequences, exact or simply approximated. This is the general method employed by theorists. formulate hypotheses, make a choice of some of the experimental laws, the whole of which must be embraced their theory; then by means of correction, generalization, analogy, they compose a of which the laws are or approximated consequences, it this which they assume. 1892a, 148) The paths of theoretical invention are multiple and as soon as an hypothesis makes it to deduce range of it not that it directly experience, although it is its relation gives it physical meaning. As in the case the definition quantities, there is arbitrariness in the of hypotheses. Duhem will be particularly concerned with question of the criteria for choosing hypotheses, combating arbitrariness. A first case of arbitrariness is resulting from the conventional of the definitions allow measurement: order represent the notion, one can in general make use of a multitude of different magnitudes (...) the simple change of the definitions would to the hypotheses [which correspond to translate] the hypothesis means of different symbols, two of in different of symbols do not any more two different hypotheses the statements of the and Greek constitute three different propositions. (Duhem 1892a, This adjustment between definitions and hypotheses reminds of Poincaré's reflections: Poincaré speaks of the intertranslability of metric geometries and fact that of a physical geometry (which makes it possible measure lengths and angles) a set of rules of coordination with empirical definitions; notes the conventional of definitions (which measurement) implies adjustments the hypotheses, but adjustments are to other different languages of the same idea. their on the concept of temperature common 15 On the conventional character of the equality of temperatures in (Poincaré 1892a) see Darrigol Darrigol shows that
 non-fingo" of Newton and Ampère, The idea thaT theoRieS caN bE dedUced From experience ALone: what then has Newton done tO formUlATe thE LaW of unIversal GRaVITatIoN? (...) HE toOk AS a HypotHesIs a propOsition of wHicH tHe experimentAL lAws [the laws Of KEpler] placed aT thE beginNiNg oF His thEorY are oNly parTIcular ConsequenCeS, Exact oR Simply aPPRoXimaTed. This is the generAL mEThod employed by All theOrIStS. tO foRmuLate their hYpOthesES, they maKE a CHOIce OF some of the expErimental laWS, thE whole Of WhiCH must bE embrAcED by Their theory; Then By means of CorrecTIon, geneRAlizatiOn, and aNalOgy, They COmPoSe a PrOPosITiOn oF WhiCh the lawS aRe Exact Or siMPLY ApprOxiMateD consEquences, and it Is tHis pROpoSitioN whicH theY aSsume. (duhem 1892a, 148) the paThS of theoretical iNvenTion are muLtiPlE anD aS soon AS an hypOthEsiS makes iT possibLE to DeDUCE a Wide range of consequEnCES, iT is not neCessarY ThAt IT directlY sYmbOlizES The exPeriENcE, althougH it is iTS rElAtion to ExPerienCe WhiCh gIves iT PhysIcal meAning. As iN the cASe of the definitIOn of quantitieS, ThERE iS ArbiTraRiness in the ChoiCE of hYpotHEsEs. DUHem wiLl be pArTIcULarly concerned with tHe QuestiOn of tHe criteria for Choosing hyPOTHeses, comBatiNG aRBitrariness. A fiRst caSe of arbitrARiness is The onE resultiNg from the CONventionAl cHoiCe oF thE DEfInitions that aLLOw thE mEasuremEnt: in order To rEprEseNt tHe Same notioN, one can iN gEnErAl MakE use oF A multituDe Of eXtRemEly diFFerent MagniTudeS (...) tHe SImpLe changE Of THE defInItIons WouLd AlreaDy leAD to ChanginG the hypotHesES [whiCh WoUld corrEspond to transLaTe] the same hYpOthEsis by MEAns of difFerent symbols, and these twO StatemeNts Of the Same HypothesiS in Two difFerENt systEms of sYmbolS dO noT COnstiTUTe Any MoRe two diffeRENt hYpothEsEs thAn the stAtements of the same pROpoSition in FrencH, LaTin aND grEek COnSTitUtE ThrEE Different proposItions. (DuheM 1892a, 152) tHiS adjustmenT BetWeEn definItions aNd hypOTheses rEminds one Of PoincarÉ's ReflECTioNs: Poincaré Speaks of The intertRAnslaBIlIty of MetRic geoMeTriEs and The facT ThaT the cHoice oF a PhysicAl geoMeTry (which Makes it possible to measurE lengtHs and AngLes) implieS a sET of Rules of coOrdiNation with EmpIriCal deFinITions; duheM NoTes THat thE conVEntional cHOiCe oF DEfInitions (whiCH ALloW measUreMEnt) impLies Adjustments in the hYPotheses, but thaT theSE AdjUstMEnts ArE related to each OthEr AS TranslatIoNs in differeNt languaGeS Of the Same idEa. Also Their diSCUsSIons on The cOncEpt of tempEraTuRE (their cOmMoN SourceS beiNg 15 on the cOnventIOnal CHAracter of the equaLity oF TEmperATurEs in (POiNcaré 1892a) sEE DarRigol (2003, 563). DarriGol shows thaT
 non-fingo" of Newton andAmpère, th e ide a t hat  t heor iescan be deduced from  experience alone: Wha t the nh as N e wt on do ne to f o rm u l ate  t he  la wo funive rsa l gravi tation? (. ..)  H e took as ah yp othesis apro position ofwhi ch the  e xpe r iment allaws[the l a ws ofKepler] p la c ed att he begi n n in g of  his theory are o n ly particular con sequen ce s ,e x act  or  simply ap pr oxima t ed. Thi s  i s t heg eneral method  employed b y  al l theo ri sts .  To fo rmula te the ir hypothes es,they make  a cho i ce of s o me of t he exp eri men tall aw s,  th ew hol e  o f w h ich  must be  e mb raced  byt h e i r th eor y; t hen b y means of co rre ctio n , g enera lizat ion,  a nd an alogy,  they  c ompose a propos itio n of whic h t he  la ws  aree xact o r s imp ly appr oximate d  co ns e q u en ces, and it is thi sp r op ositionwhicht he ya ssume. ( Du hem  189 2 a , 148 ) Th e  p aths oftheore t ic al  invent io n aremu lti ple  anda s so on asan hypot hesis makes it possi b le to deducea  w i d er ange  of  consequenc es,i t is  not ne ces s ary t hat i td ir e ctly symbolizes the  e xperie nce,although it i s its rela t i o n to exp erie n ce which gives it  phys ical meani n g. As in  thecase ofthe defin i t ion of q uan tit ies , t h e re  is arbitrari n e ss i nthe cho ice  of hyp oth ese s.Duh em  will beparticul ar ly  c on cer ned w i th the q ue sti on  of  thec riteri a for  cho os in g  hy pothese s ,c o mbat in garbi tra ri ness.  A f i rst  case o f arbitra rin e ss i sth e one r esulting from  t he convent io nal  choic e of the d efinitions that allow t h e measu rem ent:In o rder to r epr esentthe same n otion,  oneca n i n gener a l  m ake  u se of a mu l t itu de of  e xtre mely di fferent magnitudes (.. .) the simple  ch ange o fthe de f ini ti o nsw o uld already lea d to chang in g  t he hypothe s es[w hich wo uld cor respo n d to tr anslate]the samehy poth e s isby means o f differ ent symbo l s, an d  t hesetwo  state me nts  of t he sam e  hy pothe sis in  t wo dif feren tsystemsof symbols do not const ituteany m ore  two diff ere n t h ypotheses  tha n the stat eme nts  of t hes ame p ropo s it ion in Fr ench ,  Latin an d  G ree k co nstitute th r e e  di ffere ntp roposi tion s. (Duhem 1892a,1 52) This adjus tmen t bet wee n  def in itions and hyp oth es e s  reminds  o ne of Poinc aré's re fl e ction s: Poi ncaréspeakso f  t h e inte rtra nsl ability o f m et r ic geom et ri e s andthefa ct tha t thec hoic e of a physical ge ometr y (whic h  ma kes i tpossibl e  tomeasure le ngths and a ngles)  imp liesa set o frulesofco ordination with empi rical  defini ti ons;  Du hem no test h at th e co nv ent ional cho i c eo fde f ini tion s (wh ic h al low measu r ement) i mpl i es adju st men t s  in th e  h y p otheses, b utthatt h ese adjust m ents ar e  rela ted to  eachother a s  tr an slation s i n different  language s  of  t he s ame idea .Also  t hei rdiscussions onthe conc ept of t e m peratu re( thei r  commo nsources bein g 15On the con v e nti onal ch a rac ter  of  the  eq uali t y of temperatures in (Po inca ré 18 9 2a)  seeDarri go l (2003, 563) . Darrig o l shows that
 non-fingo"_of Newton_and Ampère, the idea_that theories_can_be deduced_from_experience alone: What_then has Newton_done to formulate the_law of universal_gravitation?_(...) He took as a hypothesis a proposition of which the experimental laws [the_laws_of Kepler]_placed_at_the beginning of his theory_are only particular consequences, exact_or simply_approximated. This is the general method employed by_all_theorists. To formulate_their hypotheses, they make a choice of some of_the experimental laws, the whole of_which must be_embraced_by_their theory; then by_means of correction, generalization, and analogy,_they compose a proposition of which_the laws are exact or simply approximated_consequences, and it is this proposition_which they assume. (Duhem 1892a,_148) The_paths of theoretical invention are_multiple and as_soon as_an hypothesis makes_it possible to deduce a wide_range of consequences,_it is not necessary that it_directly_symbolizes the experience,_although_it_is its_relation to experience_which_gives it_physical_meaning. As in the case of_the_definition of quantities, there is arbitrariness in_the choice of hypotheses._Duhem_will be particularly concerned_with the question of the_criteria for choosing hypotheses, combating arbitrariness._A first_case of_arbitrariness is the one resulting from the conventional choice of the_definitions that allow the measurement: In_order to represent the_same notion,_one_can in general_make_use of_a multitude of extremely different magnitudes (...)_the simple_change of the definitions would already_lead to changing the_hypotheses_[which would correspond to translate] the_same hypothesis by means of different_symbols, and these two statements_of_the_same hypothesis in two different_systems of symbols do not constitute_any more two_different hypotheses than the statements of the_same_proposition in French, Latin and Greek_constitute_three different propositions. (Duhem 1892a, 152)_This_adjustment_between definitions and hypotheses reminds_one of Poincaré's reflections: Poincaré speaks_of the intertranslability of metric geometries and the fact_that the choice_of a physical geometry (which_makes_it_possible to measure lengths and angles) implies a set of_rules of_coordination with empirical_definitions; Duhem notes that the conventional choice of definitions (which_allow measurement) implies adjustments in the hypotheses,_but that these adjustments are related to each other as translations_in different languages of the same idea. Also_their discussions on the concept of temperature_(their common sources being_15_On the conventional character of the equality_of_temperatures_in_(Poincaré 1892a) see_Darrigol (2003, 563)._Darrigol shows that