 that Kuhn, in this article, contests almost all of the history of Boyle's role in chemistry in the seventeenth century, maybe with the exception of Marie Boas's studies. And he cites a number of historians in his 90 notes, many of which are cited in SSR.7 It is also in notes that Duhem's name appears in The Copernican revolution, Kuhn's book published in 1957. In the introductory part of his bibliographical notes, Kuhn asserts that Duhem's Le système du monde could have been used very often in the composition of The Copernican revolution, but that it was only consulted "for special topics" (1970b [1957], 284). 8 When Kuhn (1970b [1957], 286) indicates bibliographies for the chapters, he refers to Duhem's Le système for research on Arabic and medieval European astronomy. In the same manner as in the article on Boyle, the bibliographical notes in The Copernican revolution are very extensive and anticipate the mentions of many scholars cited in SSR.9 It is also important to note that both the article on Boyle and the book on the Copernican revolution are works on the history of science and, although Kuhn traces some historiographic considerations in those works, he did not do so in relation to Duhem. In fact, Kuhn presents a historiographic analysis in his (autobiographical) preface to SSR. There he writes about his immersion in the study of the history of science and about a group of historians that "has shown what it was like to think scientifically in a period when the canons of scientific thought were very different from those current today" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], viii). He mentions the names of Alexandre Koyré, Émile Meyerson, Hélène Metzger and Anneliese Maier and their works that were "particularly influential" to a new historical perspective. By describing the functions of the history of science, as bequeathed by tradition, 4 Although the focus of Brad Wray's discussion is different from the one here intended, his analysis of citations made by Kuhn in SSR is informative: "Kuhn cites 127 different sources in the first edition of Structure, with a total of 206 citations. An analysis of these sources suggests that, even though Structure profoundly influenced scholarship in history, philosophy, and sociology of science, Kuhn drew mostly on work in the history of science"
that Kuhn, in this article, contests almost all of the history of Boyle's role in chemistry in the seventeenth century, possibly with the exception of Marie Boas's cogitation. And he cites a numeral of historian in his 90 notes, many of which are cited in SSR.7 It is also in note that Duhem's name appears in The Copernican revolution, Kuhn's record published in 1957. In the introductory share of his bibliographical notes, Kuhn affirm that Duhem's Le système du monde could have been use very often in the composing of The Copernican revolution, but that it was only consult " for special topics " (1970b [ 1957 ], 284). 8 When Kuhn (1970b [ 1957 ], 286) indicates bibliography for the chapters, he refers to Duhem's Le système for inquiry on Arabic and medieval European astronomy. In the like manner as in the article on Boyle, the bibliographical notes in The Copernican revolution are very extensive and anticipate the mentions of many scholar cited in SSR.9 It is also important to note that both the article on Boyle and the book on the Copernican revolution are works on the history of science and, although Kuhn traces some historiographic considerations in those works, he did not do so in relation to Duhem. In fact, Kuhn presents a historiographic analysis in his (autobiographical) preface to SSR. There he spell about his immersion in the study of the history of skill and about a group of historian that " has shown what it was like to think scientifically in a period when the canons of scientific opinion were very different from those current today " (Kuhn 1996 [ 1962 ], viii). He mentions the names of Alexandre Koyré, Émile Meyerson, Hélène Metzger and Anneliese Maier and their works that were " peculiarly influential " to a new historical perspective. By describing the functions of the history of science, as bequeathed by tradition, 4 Although the focus of Brad Wray's discussion is different from the one here intended, his analysis of citation reach by Kuhn in SSR is informative: " Kuhn cites 127 different sources in the first version of Structure, with a total of 206 citations. An analysis of these sources suggests that, even though Structure profoundly influenced scholarship in history, philosophy, and sociology of skill, Kuhn drew mostly on work in the history of science "
 thwt Kuhn, in this article, gontests almost col of vhe hisfory of Coyle's role in chemistry in vhe wevenuventh century, maybe wkth the eqception if Merie Boas's studixa. And hc citsd a uunber of historlans in his 90 notes, many ox dhnch are cited in SSR.7 It is also in njtes thst Duhem's name akpearx in Fhe Copernican revolution, Kuhn's bokk publpshed in 1957. In the ontroductory part of his blblilgraphical notes, Kkhn asserts thae Duhem's Le shstème du monde could hzve been used very often in the comppsition of Tye Fmpernican rxvolutpon, but that ln was otly conxulted "for spegial vopixs" (1970b [1957], 284). 8 When Kuhn (1970b [1957], 286) indicates bibliogtaphies fos che chapters, he referw ro Duvem's Le rtstèoe roc rssearcj oi Arabic ans medieval Wuropean astronomy. On nne same mannsr as yn the article on Boyle, the bibliographicdl hotes in The Copernican revolution are very gxtensive wnd anticipate the mentions of many scholars citeg in ARR.9 Nb kw wlso important to note that both the article jh Nojle and the book jn the Copetnlcsg revolution xre woxis on the history of sciencg and, qlthough Huhn traces some historiographix consideratpons in those works, he did not do so on rekation to Duhem. In fact, Kuhh presents w historikeraphic analysis in hhs (autobiographical) prefacq to SSR. Vhere he wriges sbout ris immerslon ik the study of the jistoty of vcience anf about a group of historians tiet "has shown ehdt pt was lihe to think scientyfically in a keriod whzn the canons of scientmfic thought were very dixverent from vhose curwent todqy" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], viii). He mentoons the ucmes of Aoexandre Koyré, Émile Meiedson, Hélène Metzgzx qnd Anneliese Msief agd tieir rmrks that wese "pxrtkvularuy influentlal" to s new historical pervpecfive. By describing tme functiins of tre history of science, as bequeauhed bb tradmtion, 4 Aljhough the focus of Brad Wray's siscussioj if different srom the one herz intended, his analysis of citations madx by Kuhn in SSR is infirmative: "Kuhn cites 127 different xourcqs in the first edition of Steucture, with a toual of 206 citations. An anzlysis of tjese sources suggests that, even though Structure profoundly influenced scyolarsii[ in historg, pholosoihy, cnd socyolojy of science, Kuhn drew mostly on work in the hisvory of scheuce"
that Kuhn, in this article, contests almost the of Boyle's in chemistry in the of Marie Boas's And he cites number of historians in his 90 many of which are cited in SSR.7 It is also in notes that name appears in The Copernican revolution, Kuhn's book published in 1957. In the part his notes, asserts that Duhem's Le système du monde could have been used very often in the composition The Copernican revolution, but that it was only "for special topics" (1970b 284). 8 When Kuhn (1970b 286) bibliographies for chapters, refers Duhem's Le système research on Arabic and medieval European astronomy. In the same manner as in the article on Boyle, bibliographical notes Copernican revolution very and the mentions of cited in SSR.9 It is also that both the article on Boyle and the on the revolution are works on the history science and, although Kuhn traces some historiographic considerations those works, he did not do so in relation to Duhem. In fact, Kuhn presents analysis in his (autobiographical) to SSR. There writes his in study of history of science and about a group of historians that "has what it was like to think scientifically in a period canons scientific thought were different from those current (Kuhn [1962], viii). He mentions of Koyré, Metzger Anneliese and their works that "particularly influential" to a new perspective. By describing the science, as bequeathed by tradition, 4 Although the of Brad Wray's discussion is different from one here intended, his analysis of citations made by Kuhn in SSR informative: "Kuhn different sources in the first edition of Structure, a total of 206 An analysis of these sources suggests that, even though profoundly scholarship in philosophy, and sociology science, Kuhn drew on work in of science"
 that Kuhn, in this article, contEsts almost All of The HisToRy of boylE's role in chemisTRy in The seventeenth century, mAybe wItH The eXCePtion Of Marie bOaS'S StuDiEs. and He CItEs a nuMbeR of histOrians in hiS 90 noTeS, many of which ARe Cited in SSR.7 it iS also in notes ThaT Duhem'S nAme APpearS in the CoPernicAN revolUtion, Kuhn'S bOOk publIShed in 1957. IN THe IntrOductory part of his BIbLIographical notEs, Kuhn AsSErTS ThaT DuHem's Le systÈmE du moNDe could HAvE BEEn uSEd very often in The compositIOn oF The CoPeRniCAn revoLutioN, bUT thAt it was only ConsUlted "for sPecial TOpics" (1970b [1957], 284). 8 WHEn Kuhn (1970b [1957], 286) IndicaTes BibLiogRApHiEs fOr THe cHApTerS, He rEfers to DUhEm'S Le syStèmE FOR ReseArcH on ARabic And medieval EuRopEan aSTroNomy. IN the sAme mAnNer as In the aRticlE oN Boyle, the biblioGrapHical noteS in thE CoPeRnicaN RevoluTioN arE very exTensive ANd aNtICIPaTe the mentions of manY sCHOlArs cited In SSR.9 IT Is AlSO importaNt To nOte tHAT both The aRTiCle on BoyLe and tHE bOoK on the COpErnicaN rEvoLutIon arE WorkS on the History oF scieNCe and, although KUHn traces some hIStORIoGRaphIc cOnsideratioNs in THose WorkS, He Did NOt do sO in reLaTIoN To Duhem. In fact, Kuhn prEsEnts a hIstorIographic analYsis in his (aUTOBiographIcal) PReFAce to SSR. There hE writEs about his IMmersion In the Study of tHe history OF Science aNd aBouT a gRouP OF hIstorians that "HAS shoWn What it wAs lIke to thInk SciEntIfiCaLly in a perIod when tHe CaNoNs Of sCientIFic thougHt WerE vEry DiffeREnt froM thosE curReNt TOdaY" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], viII). HE MEntiOnS tHe naMes Of alexaNdre kOyrÉ, Émile MEyerson, HéLènE metzGeR aNd AnnelIese Maier and tHeIr works thaT wEre "ParticULArly inflUential" to a new historical PErspectIve. by desCribIng the funCtiOns of tHe hIStory oF scienCe, as bEqUeaTHEd by tRADiTioN, 4 ALthough the FOCus Of BraD WRay's DiscussIon is different from THe oNe here intendeD, hiS anaLYSiS of CItATioNs MAde BY kuhn in SSR is infoRmative: "KuhN cITeS 127 different SOurCeS in the fIrst ediTion oF structuRe, with a toTal of 206 citaTiOns. AN ANalYsis of thesE sources Suggests tHAt, eveN ThOugh STruCture pRoFouNdly iNfluenCEd sCholaRship iN hIstory, PhiloSoPhy, and soCiology of science, Kuhn dreW mostlY on woRk iN the histoRy oF SciEnce"
 that Kuhn, in this articl e, contest s alm ost  al lof t he h istory of Boyl e 's r ole in chemistry in th e sev en t eent h  c entur y, mayb e  w i t h t he  e xce pt i on  of M ari e Boas' s studies.  An dhe cites a n u mb er of hist ori ans in his 9 0 n otes,ma nyo f whi chare c ited i n  SSR.7  It is al so in not e s thatD u he m'sname appears in T h eC opernican revo lution ,K uh n ' s b ook  published  i n 195 7 . In th e  i n t r odu c tory part ofhis bibliog r aph ical n ot es, Kuhn a ssert st hat  Duhem's Le  sys tème du m onde c o uld hav e  been u sed ve ryoft en i n  t he  co mp o sit i on  of The  Coperni ca nrevol utio n , b ut t hat  itwas o nly consulted  "f or s p eci al to pics"  (19 70 b [19 57], 2 84).8When Kuhn (1970 b [1 957], 286 ) i nd ica te s bib l iograp hie s f or thechapter s , h er e f er s to Duhem's Le sy st è m efor rese arch o n  A ra b ic and m ed iev al E u r opean  ast r on omy. Inthe sa m ema nner as  i n thear tic leon Bo y le,the bi bliograp hical notes in The C o pernican revo l ut i o na re v ery  extensiveanda ntic ipat e  t hem entio ns of  m a ny scholars cited in S SR .9 Itis al so importantto note th a t both the  art i cl e  on Boyle andthe b ook on the Copernic an re volution  are work s on the h ist ory  of  sc i e nc e and, althou g h  Kuh ntracessom e histo rio gra phi c c on sideratio ns in th os ewo rk s,he di d  not doso  in  r ela tiont o Duhe m. In  fac t,  K u hnpresent s  a h isto ri og raph ican alysi s in his  (autob iographic al) pref ac eto SSR.  There he wri te s about hi simm ersion i n the st udy of the history of s c ience a ndabout  a g roup of h ist orians  th a t "has  shown  what  i t w a s  like t othi nk  scientifi c a lly  in a  p erio d whenthe canons of scie n tif ic thought we revery d if fer e nt fro mt hos e current today"(Kuhn 1996  [ 1 96 2], viii). Heme ntionsthe nam es of Alexand re Koyré,  Émile Me ye rson , Hél ène Metzge r and An neliese M a ier a n dtheir  wo rks th at  we re "p articu l arl y inf luenti al " to a  newhi storical  perspective. By descri bing t he fu nct ions of t heh ist ory of sc ienc e, as bequ eat hed  by t rad i tion,  4 A l th oug h  thefocu s  of BradW ra y's d is cussion isd i f fer ent f rom the on e he re intended, hisa nalysis of cit atio n s  ma deb y Ku hn  in SSR is inf orm at i v e: "Kuhn  c ites 127 di fferentso u rcesin the  first  editio n of Struct ure,  wi th a tota l o f2 06 cita ti on s . An a naly si s of t hese s o urce s suggests that, e ven t h o ugh S t ruc turepr ofoundl y  inf luenced sc holarship i n hist ory,  phil osophy,  a nd soc iol og y of scien c e, Kuhn d rew m ostly o nwork  in  the h isto r y  of s cien ce "
 that_Kuhn, in_this article, contests almost_all of_the_history of_Boyle's_role in chemistry_in the seventeenth_century, maybe with the_exception of Marie_Boas's_studies. And he cites a number of historians in his 90 notes, many of_which_are cited_in_SSR.7_It is also in notes_that Duhem's name appears in_The Copernican_revolution, Kuhn's book published in 1957. In the_introductory_part of his_bibliographical notes, Kuhn asserts that Duhem's Le système du_monde could have been used very_often in the_composition_of_The Copernican revolution, but_that it was only consulted "for_special topics" (1970b [1957], 284). 8_When Kuhn (1970b [1957], 286) indicates bibliographies_for the chapters, he refers to_Duhem's Le système for research_on Arabic_and medieval European astronomy. In_the same manner_as in_the article on_Boyle, the bibliographical notes in The_Copernican revolution are_very extensive and anticipate the mentions_of_many scholars cited_in_SSR.9_It is_also important to_note_that both_the_article on Boyle and the book_on_the Copernican revolution are works on the_history of science and,_although_Kuhn traces some historiographic_considerations in those works, he_did not do so in relation_to Duhem._In fact,_Kuhn presents a historiographic analysis in his (autobiographical) preface to SSR._There he writes about his immersion_in the study of_the history_of_science and about_a_group of_historians that "has shown what it was_like to_think scientifically in a period when_the canons of scientific_thought_were very different from those current_today" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], viii). He_mentions the names of Alexandre_Koyré,_Émile_Meyerson, Hélène Metzger and Anneliese_Maier and their works that were_"particularly influential" to_a new historical perspective. By describing the_functions_of the history of science, as_bequeathed_by tradition, 4 Although the focus_of_Brad_Wray's discussion is different from_the one here intended, his analysis_of citations made by Kuhn in SSR is informative:_"Kuhn cites 127_different sources in the first_edition_of_Structure, with a total of 206 citations. An analysis of_these sources_suggests that, even_though Structure profoundly influenced scholarship in history, philosophy, and sociology_of science, Kuhn drew mostly on work_in the history of science"