 actual, use of the distinction between the subtle mind and the geometric mind lies in the fact that in La théorie physique, the subtle mind is associated with the English way of doing physics, while in the writings collected in La science allemande, the subtle mind is primarily associated with the French mentality, while the geometric mind is associated with the German mindset. In other words, when compared to the English, the French display a deductive mindset; whereas, compared to the Germans, the French display a broad, but weak mode of thought. How is this possible? If we immediately rule out the hasty reading that ties nationality, strictly speaking, with one of the two mentalities, it becomes clear that the modes of thought are defined not in function of the specific nationality, but rather by the physicists' approach to the physical theory, since, if Duhem has gone to great lengths to criticizing the English approach it is precisely because the success of mechanical models has led to their use beyond the English channel, and to their triumph in the kingdom of abstract theory, namely, France and Germany. On the other hand, we can delimit the scope of the subtle mind in the French context if we grant that both French and German scientists are advocates of abstract theory, but that they differ in the way they view a system's axioms and postulates, so that the geometric mind depends on because of the consequences they may derive, while the subtle mind is capable of feeling or intuiting their truth. However, although this interpretation is plausible in theory, it has the burden of being appropriate when applied to mathematical theories, but indefensible when applied to the physical theory. This is the case because the subtle mind is the one in charge of filling in the gaps the geometric mind is unable to reach, which exceed the domain of principles and of the physical theory itself, as is the case with the relationship between theoretical and 29 "Our need to admit nothing except what can be clearly deduced from accepted principles makes us mistrustful of any unexpected discovery. This need leads to the bureaucratic mind, hostile to novelties, for which continental scientist and their academies are so often reproached." (Duhem 1996 [1893], 70). In the original: "Notre besoin de ne rien admettre qui ne se déduise clairement des principes reçus nous rend méfiants à l'égard de toute découverte inattendue; de ce besoin découle l'esprit rout
actual, use of the distinction between the subtle mind and the geometric judgment dwell in the fact that in La théorie physique, the subtle mind is consort with the English way of doing purgative, while in the writings collected in La science allemande, the elusive mind is primarily consociate with the French mentality, while the geometric mind is consociate with the German mindset. In other words, when compared to the English, the French display a deductive mindset; whereas, compare to the Germans, the French display a broad, but weak mood of thought. How is this possible? If we immediately rule out the hasty interpretation that ties nationality, strictly speaking, with one of the two mentalities, it becomes clean that the modes of thought are defined not in function of the specific nationality, but rather by the physicists' approach to the physical theory, since, if Duhem has gone to great lengths to criticizing the English approach it is precisely because the success of mechanical models has led to their function beyond the English channel, and to their triumph in the kingdom of abstract hypothesis, namely, France and Germany. On the early hand, we can delimit the scope of the subtle judgment in the French context if we grant that both French and German scientists are advocates of abstract theory, but that they disagree in the way they view a system's axioms and postulates, so that the geometric mind depends on because of the consequences they may derive, while the subtle mind is capable of palpate or intuit their accuracy. However, although this rendition is plausible in theory, it has the burden of being appropriate when applied to mathematical theories, but indefensible when applied to the physical hypothesis. This is the case because the insidious mind is the one in charge of fill in the gaps the geometric mind is unable to reach, which exceed the sphere of principles and of the forcible theory itself, as is the case with the kinship between theoretical and 29 " Our need to admit nothing except what can be clearly deduced from accepted principles make us mistrustful of any unexpected discovery. This need leads to the bureaucratic mind, hostile to novelties, for which continental scientist and their academies are so often reproached. " (Duhem 1996 [ 1893 ], 70). In the original: " Notre besoin de ne rien admettre qui ne se déduise clairement des principe reçus nous rend méfiants à l'égard de toute découverte inattendue; de ce besoin découle l'esprit rout
 achual, use of the distinctlon between the subtle kind ahd the gdometric mind lies in the fart tyat ib La théorie physique, tfe subtle mind is assixiated witi the Ennjish aay mh doing physics, while in dhe writings cmlueeted in La science allemande, the subele minc ls primarily afsocpaeed sptm the French mentality, while the geometgic mind is assocoated with the German minddet. Ln other words, whej compared jk trw English, thd French dpvplay a desuctive mindset; whereas, comparea to che Germans, tye Vtench displab a brjad, but weak mode of thoughy. How is this iossiule? Uf we immediately rulx out the hasty readyng that dizs nationality, strictoy speaning, witf ond or vhe two mfntelities, it gecomes cleqr that the modes og eyought are derined goe in function of the specific nationaliuy, buf rather by the physiciwts' approach to the pjysical treory, since, if Duhem has gone to great lengths to critmckziun gye English approach it is precisely because the auvcvss of mechanical models has lfd jo their use bgyond tks Snglish channel, anf to thgir truumph in uhe kongdom of abstract theory, nqmely, France qnd Germany. On the other hand, we van drlimit the scope of the subfle mind in the Frendf context if we erakt dhat both French and Germag scientiwts cre advozatex of afstract thfory, ngt that they diffeg in jhe waf they viea a system's axioms and postulatxx, so that thg gaomvtric minb depekds on because jf the consequgnces thev may aerive, whime the vubtle mind is capable ox feeling or mntuiting theur teuth. Hoddver, although yhis integpxetation us plausible in thcory, kf has the burdeu if being approptiage rhvn eppliqg to mathemadicau tfrorier, but indefcnskble when applied to the phyaical theory. This os the casg because the subtle mond is the one in fhargx of fmlling in the gaps the geometric mind ia unable ho veach, which evceee the domain of principles and of the physical theocy itself, as is the casw with the relationxmip between vheoreeical and 29 "Our need to admit bothing except whst can be clearly dedhced fsom afcepted principles makes us mistrustful of any unexpected discovery. This beed lxaqs to the bhreaicratpc innd, hoseile vo novelties, for ehich continental scientist and their awabemies are so often reproachec." (Auhem 1996 [1893], 70). In tfe original: "Notre besoin de ne roen admettre qui ne se déduise ckairement des principes veçus nous rend méfianna à l'égard de toute décpuvertz inatrendue; ee cc besoin décould l'rsirit rout
actual, use of the distinction between the and geometric mind in the fact the mind is associated the English way doing physics, while in the writings in La science allemande, the subtle mind is primarily associated with the French while the geometric mind is associated with the German mindset. In other words, compared the the display a deductive mindset; whereas, compared to the Germans, the French display a broad, but weak of thought. How is this possible? If we rule out the hasty that ties nationality, strictly speaking, one the two it clear the modes of are defined not in function of the specific nationality, but rather by the physicists' approach to the theory, since, has gone great to the English approach precisely because the success of mechanical to their use beyond the English channel, and their triumph the kingdom of abstract theory, namely, and Germany. On the other hand, we can the scope of the subtle mind in the French context if we grant that both German scientists are advocates abstract theory, but they in way view a axioms and postulates, so that the geometric mind depends on because the consequences they may derive, while the subtle mind is feeling intuiting their truth. although this interpretation is in it has the burden appropriate applied but when to the physical theory. is the case because the mind is the one the gaps the geometric mind is unable to which exceed the domain of principles and the physical theory itself, as is the case with the relationship between and 29 to admit nothing except what can be clearly from accepted principles makes mistrustful of any unexpected discovery. This need leads to bureaucratic hostile to for which continental and their academies so often reproached." [1893], 70). the "Notre rien admettre qui ne se déduise des reçus nous rend méfiants à de inattendue; de ce besoin découle l'esprit rout
 actual, use of the distinction Between the SubtlE miNd aNd The gEomeTric mind lies in THe faCt that in La théorie physiQue, thE sUBtle MInD is asSociateD WiTH The enGlIsh WaY Of Doing PhySics, whiLe in the wriTinGs Collected in LA ScIence allemAndE, the subtle miNd iS primaRiLy aSSociaTed With tHe FrenCH mentaLity, while ThE GeometRIc mind iS ASsOciaTed with the German mINdSEt. In other words, When coMpAReD TO thE EnGlish, the FrEnCh disPLay a dedUCtIVE MinDSet; whereas, comPared to the GERmaNs, the FReNch DIsplay A broaD, bUT weAk mode of thoUght. how is this PossibLE? If we imMEdiatelY rule oUt tHe hAsty REaDiNg tHaT TieS NaTioNAliTy, strictLy SpEakinG, witH ONE Of thE twO menTalitIes, it becomes cLeaR thaT The Modes Of thoUght ArE defiNed not In funCtIon of the specifiC natIonality, bUt rAtHer By The phYSicistS' apProAch to thE physicAL thEoRY, SInCe, if Duhem has gone to GrEAT lEngths to CriticIZiNg THe EnglisH aPprOach IT Is preCiseLY bEcause thE succeSS oF mEchanicAl Models HaS leD to Their USe beYond thE English ChannEL, and to their triUMph in the kingdOM oF ABsTRact TheOry, namely, FrAnce ANd GeRmanY. on The OTher hAnd, we CaN DeLImit the scope of the suBtLe mind In the french context If we grant tHAT Both FrenCh anD geRMan scientists aRe advOcates of abSTract theOry, buT that theY differ in THE way they VieW a sYstEm's AXIoMs and postulatES, So thAt The geomEtrIc mind dEpeNds On bEcaUsE of the conSequenceS tHeY mAy DerIve, whILe the subTlE miNd Is cApablE Of feelIng or IntuItInG TheIr truth. hOwEVEr, alThOuGh thIs iNtErpreTatiON is PlausibLe in theorY, it HAs thE bUrDen of beIng appropriatE wHen applied To MatHematiCAL theorieS, but indefensible when appLIed to thE phYsicaL theOry. This is The Case beCauSE the suBtle miNd is tHe One IN ChargE OF fIllInG in the gaps THE geOmetrIc Mind Is unablE to reach, which exceeD The Domain of princIplEs anD OF tHe pHYsICal ThEOry ITSelf, as is the case With the relAtIOnShip betweeN TheOrEtical aNd 29 "Our neEd to aDMit nothIng except What can be ClEarlY DEduCed from accEpted priNciples maKEs us mIStRustfUl oF any unExPecTed diScoverY. thiS need Leads tO tHe bureAucraTiC mind, hosTile to novelties, for which ContinEntal SciEntist and TheIR acAdemies arE so oFten reproaCheD." (DuHem 1996 [1893], 70). In The ORiginAl: "NoTRe BesOIn de nE rieN Admettre qUI nE se DÉDuIse clairemeNT DEs pRinciPes REçus noUs reNd méfiants à l'égard DE toute découverTe inATTenDue; DE ce bEsOin découle l'espRit RoUT
 actual, use of the distin ction betw een t hesub tl e mi nd a nd the geometr i c mi nd lies in the fact th at in  L a  thé o ri e phy sique,t he s ubt le  m ind  i s  a ssoci ate d withthe Englis h w ay  of doing ph y si cs, whileinthe writings  co llecte dinL a sci enc e all emande ,  the s ubtle min di s prim a rily as s o ci ated  with the Frenchm en t ality, while t he geo me t ri c min d i s associat ed  with the Ger m an m i nds e t. In other w ords, whenc omp ared t othe Englis h, th eF ren ch displaya de ductive m indset ;  wherea s , compa red to  th e G erma n s,  t heFr e nch di spl a y a  broad,bu tweakmode o f thou ght . Ho w isthis possible ? I f we imm ediat ely r uleou t the  hasty  read in g that ties nat iona lity, str ict ly  sp ea king, with o neofthe two  mental i tie s, i t  b ecomes clear thatth e mo des of t hought ar ed efined n ot  in  fun c t ion o f th e  s pecificnation a li ty , but r at her by  t hephy sicis t s' a pproac h to the  phys i cal theory, si n ce, if Duhemh as g on e  togre at lengthsto c r itic izin g  t heE nglis h app ro a ch it is precisely bec au se the  succ ess of mechan ical model s h as led t o th e ir use beyond the  Engl ish channe l , and to  thei r triump h in thek i ngdom of  ab str act  th e o ry , namely, Fra n c e an dGermany . O n the o the r h and , w ecan delim it the s co pe  o fthe  subt l e mind i nthe  F ren ch co n text i f wegran tth a t b oth Fre n ch a nd G er ma n sc ien ti sts a re a d voc ates of  abstract  th e ory,  b ut  that t hey differ in  t he way the yvie w a sy s t em's axi oms and postulates, sot hat the  ge ometr ic m ind depen dson bec aus e  of th e cons equen ce s t h e y may d er ive ,while thes u btl e min dis c apableof feeling or intu i tin g their truth . H owev e r ,alt h ou g h t hi s  in t e rpretation is p lausible i nt he ory, it ha s  th eburdenof bein g app r opriate  when app lied to m at hema t i cal  theories,  but ind efensible whena pp liedtothe ph ys ica l the ory. T h isis th e case  b ecause  thesu btle min d is the one in chargeof fil linginthe gapsthe geo metric mi nd i s unable t o r eac h, wh ich excee d th e  d oma i n ofprin c iples and of  th e ph ysical theo r y its elf,asi s thecase  with the relatio n ship between t heor e t ica l a n d 29  " Our need to ad mit  n o t hing exc ep t what canbe clear ly deduc ed fro m acce pted pr i n ci p les ma kesusmistrustf ulof any une xp ec t ed dis cove ry . This  needl eads t o the bureaucrat ic mi n d , hos t ile  to n ov elties, forwhich cont inental sci entist  and  thei r acade mi es are  so  o ften repro a ched." (D uhem1996 [1 89 3],70) . In t he o r i ginal : "N ot rebesoin de n er ie na dme ttre  quine  sedéduise c l airement  de s  princi pe s r e ç us nou s  r e n d méfiants  àl'éga r d  de touted écou v er t e ina ttendu e; dece beso i n d éc oule l' esp r i t rout
 actual,_use of_the distinction between the_subtle mind_and_the geometric_mind_lies in the_fact that in_La théorie physique, the_subtle mind is_associated_with the English way of doing physics, while in the writings collected in La_science_allemande, the_subtle_mind_is primarily associated with the_French mentality, while the geometric_mind is_associated with the German mindset. In other words,_when_compared to the_English, the French display a deductive mindset; whereas, compared_to the Germans, the French display_a broad, but_weak_mode_of thought. How is_this possible? If we immediately rule_out the hasty reading that ties_nationality, strictly speaking, with one of the_two mentalities, it becomes clear that_the modes of thought are_defined not_in function of the specific_nationality, but rather_by the_physicists' approach to_the physical theory, since, if Duhem_has gone to_great lengths to criticizing the English_approach_it is precisely_because_the_success of_mechanical models has_led_to their_use_beyond the English channel, and to_their_triumph in the kingdom of abstract theory,_namely, France and Germany._On_the other hand, we_can delimit the scope of_the subtle mind in the French_context if_we grant_that both French and German scientists are advocates of abstract theory,_but that they differ in the_way they view a_system's axioms_and_postulates, so that_the_geometric mind_depends on because of the consequences they_may derive,_while the subtle mind is capable_of feeling or intuiting_their_truth. However, although this interpretation is_plausible in theory, it has the_burden of being appropriate when_applied_to_mathematical theories, but indefensible when_applied to the physical theory. This_is the case_because the subtle mind is the one_in_charge of filling in the gaps_the_geometric mind is unable to reach,_which_exceed_the domain of principles and_of the physical theory itself, as_is the case with the relationship between theoretical and_29 "Our need_to admit nothing except what_can_be_clearly deduced from accepted principles makes us mistrustful of any_unexpected discovery._This need leads_to the bureaucratic mind, hostile to novelties, for which continental_scientist and their academies are so often_reproached." (Duhem 1996 [1893], 70). In the original: "Notre besoin de_ne rien admettre qui ne se déduise clairement_des principes reçus nous rend méfiants à_l'égard de toute découverte_inattendue;_de ce besoin découle l'esprit rout