 (2002) has emphasized the apologetic aspects imbricated in the production of the French philosopher and, largely supported by Duhemian correspondence, has outlined more clearly the personal relationships nourished by Duhem in an academic environment that was admittedly unfavorable. Paul Needham, in an extensive series of articles (see, for example, 1996; 2002; 2008), and Stefano Bordoni (2012) have devoted mainly, but not exclusively, to the scientific works of Duhem, concerning chemistry and thermodynamics respectively. Needham is also responsible for translating Duhem's important scientific works into English (Duhem 2002; 2011). It seems to us that two thorny issues have stood out among the experts in recent decades. One of them, more widespread, concerns the determination of the place due to Duhem in the debate on scientific realism: in this case, it is the constant attempts to conciliate realistic and instrumentalist theses in his philosophy, and among those who incline for the realistic interpretation, of the exact definition of its alleged realism. The second, concerning the historical links of philosophy embraced by the French philosopher, refers to his distant methodological affiliation, identified almost always alternately, now in Aristotle, sometimes in Pascal. In addition, this preoccupation is associated with another, that is, of his theological option, which makes him to be inserted among the neo-Thomists or among the modernists, or even excluded from both categories, given the peculiarity of his Catholicism. The present issue of Transversal contemplates and prolongs the questions posed by this new generation of scholars. The reader will soon note that some of the articles presented here instigate new reflections because they have a critical tone, such as the one written by Marie Gueguen and Stathis Psillos, which call into question the Duhemian distinction between theoretical representation and explanation, essential for a second distinction, this time between physics and metaphysics, and for the establishment of his historical continuity. In the same vein, Michael Liston criticizes Duhem's attempt to use evolutionary standards derived from the history of physics as an expedient for the justification of methodological judgments, since, he argues, such patterns are always easy to find. Other articles are in charge of doing justice to some aspects of Duhemian thought. Paul Needham's contribution seeks to demonstrate the reasonableness of our physicist's position by criticizing the atomism of his time, on which a "general skepticism" would stand, and by not distinguishing physical
(2002) has emphasized the apologetic aspects imbricated in the production of the French philosopher and, largely back by Duhemian symmetry, has outlined more clearly the personal relationships nutrify by Duhem in an academic environment that was admittedly unfavorable. Paul Needham, in an extensive serial of articles (see, for example, 1996; 2002; 2008), and Stefano Bordoni (2012) have give mainly, but not exclusively, to the scientific work of Duhem, concerning chemistry and thermodynamics respectively. Needham is also responsible for translating Duhem's important scientific works into English (Duhem 2002; 2011). It look to us that two thorny issues have stood out among the expert in recent decades. One of them, more far-flung, concerns the decision of the place due to Duhem in the argument on scientific realism: in this case, it is the constant attempts to reconcile realistic and instrumentalist theses in his philosophy, and among those who incline for the realistic rendition, of the accurate definition of its allege realism. The second, concerning the historical links of philosophy embraced by the French philosopher, refers to his aloof methodological affiliation, identified about always alternately, now in Aristotle, sometimes in Pascal. In summation, this preoccupancy is consociate with another, that is, of his theological option, which makes him to be inserted among the neo - Thomists or among the modernists, or even excluded from both categories, given the curio of his Catholicism. The present issue of Transversal contemplates and prolongs the questions posed by this new generation of scholars. The reader will soon note that some of the articles presented here instigate newfangled reflections because they get a critical timbre, such as the one written by Marie Gueguen and Stathis Psillos, which call into question the Duhemian distinction between theoretical representation and explanation, essential for a second distinction, this meter between physics and metaphysics, and for the establishment of his historical continuity. In the same vein, Michael Liston criticize Duhem's attempt to practice evolutionary standards derived from the history of physics as an expedient for the justification of methodological judgments, since, he argues, such form are always comfortable to find. Other article are in charge of doing department of justice to some aspects of Duhemian idea. Paul Needham's contribution seeks to prove the reasonableness of our physicist's position by criticizing the atomism of his time, on which a " general incredulity " would stand, and by not distinguishing forcible
 (2002) hws emphasized the apologttic aspects imbrnxated mn the lroductiun of the French philosopher abd, laegely supported by Duhdmian corgespondenxe, hes outlined more clearly the psvsonan relationships nourished by Duhem in at xccdemic environment that was admittedjy unfafogable. Paul Neeqham, yn ah extensive series of articles (see, for exemple, 1996; 2002; 2008), and Strfano Bordoni (2012) have devotef malnly, but not excludively, to tye ssuentific worys of Duhem, concerning chemistry and thermodynamics rdspeccively. Needyan id also respoisible for translabpng Duham's impprtant scientinic wmrkw into English (Duhem 2002; 2011). It seems to us trat two tvoxny issues have stood oyt ammng dhe dzpefts ii rscent fecedes. One of them, more qidespread, concerns trv determinatikn of ehq place due to Duhem in the debate on sbienfific realism: in this cqse, it is the constanj attempts to conciliate realistic and instrumentalist thesas in fis pmiloripjy, and among those who incline for the realisejc ikterpretation, of the exact cevimytion of its xllegeb rsalism. The second, foncernyng tye historycal links of philosophy embracwd by the Frvnch philosopher, referd to his dirtanj methpdological affiliation, ndentiried almost always amgernately, now in Arpstodle, someukmes in Pascal. In addition, thix preoczupajion is associatef witm another, that is, ov his tveological option, which makes him to be iixerted among tve teo-Thomifts ov among the modqrnists, or eveu excludzd froo both catvgories, gmven the pectliarity of hhd Catholicisk. The prqsenr iswue of Gfansversal conyemplates and prolobgs the questions iosed gy this new genzxauiin of scholars. Thd rqafec wilj soon note tvat romd of tfe articles oresrnted here instigate new reflections becauxe they hace a crieical tone, suvh as the one writuen by Macie Gurgugn and Stathis Psillos, which caml into qkesbion the Duheiian distinction between theoretical representation and explanation, essenrial for a second dnsuinction, this time between [hysics and metaphysucs, and for the extablishment of his hjstoriwal clntinuity. In the same vein, Michael Liston criticizes Duhem's attempt to usw evolntyonary stansardx derpveb fxom the hisvocy of physics as sn expedient for the justificatmon of metvobological judgments, since, he sreues, such patjerns are always easy to fjnd. Othet articles are in charge of doimg justice to some aspecbs of Duhwmian thought. Peul Needham's contribition veeks to deminstvate the reasovabkekess of oug phbsieist's position by criticizing the atomiwm of his time, on xhich a "genevau skekticism" rould stand, and gy nkh disjinguishing phusical
(2002) has emphasized the apologetic aspects imbricated production the French and, largely supported more the personal relationships by Duhem in academic environment that was admittedly unfavorable. Needham, in an extensive series of articles (see, for example, 1996; 2002; 2008), Stefano Bordoni (2012) have devoted mainly, but not exclusively, to the scientific works Duhem, chemistry thermodynamics Needham is also responsible for translating Duhem's important scientific works into English (Duhem 2002; 2011). It to us that two thorny issues have stood among the experts in decades. One of them, more concerns determination of place to in the debate scientific realism: in this case, it is the constant attempts to conciliate realistic and instrumentalist theses in philosophy, and who incline the interpretation, the exact definition alleged realism. The second, concerning the philosophy embraced by the French philosopher, refers to distant methodological identified almost always alternately, now in sometimes in Pascal. In addition, this preoccupation is with another, that is, of his theological option, which makes him to be inserted among or among the modernists, even excluded from categories, the of Catholicism. The issue of Transversal contemplates and prolongs the questions posed by this generation of scholars. The reader will soon note that some articles here instigate new because they have a tone, as the one written Gueguen Stathis into the distinction between theoretical representation explanation, essential for a second this time between physics establishment of his historical continuity. In the same Michael Liston criticizes Duhem's attempt to use standards derived from the history of physics as an expedient for the of methodological he argues, such patterns are always easy to Other articles are in of doing justice to some aspects of Duhemian thought. Needham's seeks to the reasonableness of physicist's position by the atomism of on which "general would not distinguishing physical
 (2002) has emphasized the apologetiC aspects imBricaTed In tHe ProdUctiOn of the French pHIlosOpher and, largely supportEd by DUhEMian COrRespoNdence, hAS oUTLinEd MoRe cLeARlY the pErsOnal relAtionships NouRiShed by Duhem iN An Academic enVirOnment that waS adMittedLy UnfAVorabLe. PAul NeEdham, iN An exteNsive seriEs OF articLEs (see, foR EXaMple, 1996; 2002; 2008), And Stefano Bordoni (2012) HAvE Devoted mainly, bUt not eXcLUsIVEly, To tHe scientifIc Works OF Duhem, cONcERNIng CHemistry and thErmodynamicS ResPectivElY. NeEDham is Also rEsPOnsIble for tranSlatIng Duhem's ImportANt scienTIfic worKs into engLisH (DuhEM 2002; 2011). IT sEemS tO Us tHAt Two THorNy issues HaVe Stood Out aMONG The eXpeRts iN receNt decades. One oF thEm, moRE wiDesprEad, coNcerNs The deTerminAtion Of The place due to DuHem iN the debatE on ScIenTiFic reALism: in ThiS caSe, it is tHe constANt aTtEMPTs To conciliate realisTiC ANd InstrumeNtalisT ThEsES in his phIlOsoPhy, aND Among ThosE WhO incline For the REaLiStic intErPretatIoN, of The Exact DEfinItion oF its alleGed reALism. The second, cONcerning the hiSToRICaL LinkS of Philosophy eMbraCEd by The FREnCh pHIlosoPher, rEfERs TO his distant methodolOgIcal afFiliaTion, identifieD almost alwAYS AlternatEly, nOW iN aristotle, sometImes iN Pascal. In aDDition, thIs preOccupatiOn is assocIATed with aNotHer, ThaT is, OF HiS theological oPTIon, wHiCh makes Him To be insErtEd aMonG thE nEo-ThomistS or among ThE mOdErNisTs, or eVEn excludEd FroM bOth CategORies, giVen thE pecUlIaRIty Of his CaTHoLICism. thE pReseNt iSsUe of TRansVErsAl conteMplates anD prOLongS tHe QuestioNs posed by this NeW generatioN oF scHolars. tHE reader wIll soon note that some of thE ArticleS prEsentEd heRe instigaTe nEw reflEctIOns becAuse thEy havE a CriTICal toNE, SuCh aS tHe one writtEN By MArie GUeGuen And StatHis Psillos, which calL IntO question the DUheMian DIStIncTIoN BetWeEN thEORetical represenTation and eXpLAnAtion, essenTIal FoR a seconD distinCtion, THis time Between phYsics and mEtAphySICs, aNd for the esTablishmEnt of his hIStoriCAl ContiNuiTy. In thE sAme Vein, MIchael lIstOn criTicizeS DUhem's aTtempT tO use evolUtionary standards deriveD from tHe hisTorY of physicS as AN exPedient foR the JustificatIon Of mEthodOloGIcal jUdgmENtS, siNCe, he aRgueS, Such patteRNs Are ALWaYs easy to finD. oTHer ArticLes ARe in chArge Of doing justice to sOMe aspects of DuhEmiaN THouGht. pAul NEeDham's contributIon SeEKS to demonStRate the reasOnableneSs OF our pHysiciSt's posItion by CRItICizing The aTomIsm of his tIme, On WHich a "geNeRaL SkeptiCism" WoUld staNd, and bY Not dISTinguishing physiCal
 (2002) has emphasized the  apologeti c asp ect s i mb rica tedin the product i on o f the French philosoph er an d, larg e ly  supp orted b y  D u h emi an  c orr es p on dence , h as outl ined morecle ar ly the perso n al  relations hip s nourishedbyDuhemin  an acade mic  envi ronmen t  thatwas admit te d ly unf a vorable . Pa ul N eedham, in an ext e ns i ve series of a rticle s( se e ,  fo r e xample, 19 96 ; 200 2 ; 2008) ,  a n d Ste f ano Bordoni ( 2012) haved evo ted ma in ly, but no t exc lu s ive ly, to thescie ntific wo rks of Duhem,c oncerni ng che mis try  and th er mod yn a mic s  r esp e cti vely. Ne ed ha m isalso r e s pons ibl e fo r tra nslating Duhe m's  imp o rta nt sc ienti ficwo rks i nto En glish  ( Duhem 2002; 201 1).It seemstous  th at  twot hornyiss ues  have s tood ou t  am on g t he  experts in recent  d e c ad es. Oneof the m ,mo r e widesp re ad,  con c e rns t he d e te rminatio n of t h epl ace due  t o Duhe minthe  deba t e on  scien tific re alism :  in this case, it is the con s ta n t  a t temp tsto concilia te r e alis tica nd  in s trume ntali st th e ses in his philosop hy , andamong  those who in cline fort h e  realist ic i n te r pretation, ofthe e xact defin i tion ofits a lleged r ealism. T h e  second,  co nce rni ngt h ehistorical li n k s of  p hilosop hyembrace d b y t heFre nc h philoso pher, re fe rs  t ohis  dist a nt metho do log ic alaffil i ation,  iden tifi ed  a l mos t alway s  a l t erna te ly , no w i nArist otle ,  so metimes  in Pasca l.I n ad di ti on, thi s preoccupati on  is associ at edwith a n o ther, th at is, of his theologic a l optio n,which  mak es him to  be  inser ted amongthe ne o-Tho mi sts o r amo n g  t hemo dernists,o r  ev en ex cl uded  from b oth categories, gi v enthe peculiari tyof h i s  C ath o li c ism .T hep r esent issue ofTransversa lc on templatesa ndpr olongsthe que stion s  posedby this n ew genera ti on o f sch olars. The  readerwill soon notet ha t som e o f thear tic les p resent e d h ere i nstiga te  new r eflec ti ons beca use they have a critica l tone , suc h a s the one  wr i tte n by Mari e Gu eguen andSta thi s Psi llo s , whi ch c a ll  in t o que stio n  the Duhe m ia n d i s ti nction betw e e n  th eoret ica l  repre sent ation and explana t ion, essential  for a  se con d  dis ti nction, this t ime  b e t ween phy si cs and meta physics,  a n d for  the e stabli shmento f  h i s hist oric alcontinuit y.In the sam eve i n, Mic hael  L istoncritic i zesD u hem's attempt to  usee v oluti o nar y sta nd ards de r ived  from thehistory ofphysic s as  an e xpedien tfor th e j us tification of method ologi cal jud gm ents , s ince,he a r g ues,such  p att erns area l wa y sea s y t o fi nd. O th er a rticles a r e in cha rge of doin gjus t i ce tos om e aspects of  Du hemia n thought. P a ul N e ed h am'scontri bution  seekst o d em onstrat e t h e  reasonab leness of our  p hysi cist's p os itio nbycr iticizing the a tomism o f his ti m e , on w hic h  a " g eneral  s kepticism" w ouldst a nd, and b y n ot dist i ngu ish ing  phy sic al
 (2002)_has emphasized_the apologetic aspects imbricated_in the_production_of the_French_philosopher and, largely_supported by Duhemian_correspondence, has outlined more_clearly the personal_relationships_nourished by Duhem in an academic environment that was admittedly unfavorable. Paul Needham, in_an_extensive series_of_articles_(see, for example, 1996; 2002;_2008), and Stefano Bordoni (2012)_have devoted_mainly, but not exclusively, to the scientific works_of_Duhem, concerning chemistry_and thermodynamics respectively. Needham is also responsible for translating_Duhem's important scientific works into English_(Duhem 2002; 2011)._It_seems_to us that two_thorny issues have stood out among_the experts in recent decades. One_of them, more widespread, concerns the determination_of the place due to Duhem_in the debate on scientific_realism: in_this case, it is the_constant attempts to_conciliate realistic_and instrumentalist theses_in his philosophy, and among those_who incline for_the realistic interpretation, of the exact_definition_of its alleged_realism._The_second, concerning_the historical links_of_philosophy embraced_by_the French philosopher, refers to his_distant_methodological affiliation, identified almost always alternately, now_in Aristotle, sometimes in_Pascal._In addition, this preoccupation_is associated with another, that_is, of his theological option, which_makes him_to be_inserted among the neo-Thomists or among the modernists, or even excluded_from both categories, given the peculiarity_of his Catholicism. The_present issue_of_Transversal contemplates and_prolongs_the questions_posed by this new generation of scholars._The reader_will soon note that some of_the articles presented here_instigate_new reflections because they have a_critical tone, such as the one_written by Marie Gueguen and_Stathis_Psillos,_which call into question the_Duhemian distinction between theoretical representation and_explanation, essential for_a second distinction, this time between physics_and_metaphysics, and for the establishment of_his_historical continuity. In the same vein,_Michael_Liston_criticizes Duhem's attempt to use_evolutionary standards derived from the history_of physics as an expedient for the justification of_methodological judgments, since,_he argues, such patterns are_always_easy_to find. Other articles are in charge of doing justice_to some_aspects of Duhemian_thought. Paul Needham's contribution seeks to demonstrate the reasonableness of_our physicist's position by criticizing the atomism_of his time, on which a "general skepticism" would stand, and_by not distinguishing physical