ger's work, reminiscent of Duhem's attitude, concerns her considerations about the need of the modern historian to look at the changes that have occurred since that period of time and refer to antecedents, material conditions and conceptual change.32 She insisted on the need to pay attention to the differences between the context of her day and that of the investigated one, signaling her effort to describe past theories, "as they should appear to the studious disciples of their masters" (Metzger 1969 [1923], 342). For example, with respect to the history of phlogiston theory, she states that her aim "was to reconstitute the whole of the Stahlian doctrine as it appeared at the time of its elaboration, without worrying about the oversimplifications or modifications which might have altered its aspect with regard to posterity" (Metzger 1930, 5).33 Metzger, as well as Koyré, Maier and others34 recognized the importance of Duhem's work to the development of their own. In a different way, they had his writings as a source for discussing problems that were gradually changing the historical research of science. They were Duhem's followers in the face of the "older" – or, as said Duhem, of the "classic (classique)" or "senseless (insensée)" history of science (Duhem 1906, 278). And as much as his followers had disagreed with his analysis and conclusions, the role he played in promoting new and unsuspected researches is undeniable. Duhem's followers were, like Duhem himself, changing the history of science with their revisions. It is worth noting Bernard Cohen's (1987, 56-57) account of his "painful experience of showing" Koyré "that he had made a factual error in one of his publications." Koyré would have been "chagrined and sad, terribly annoyed with himself". But, after a moment's pause, would have replied: "If Duhem had never made any mistakes, we would have had no great jobs to do. We have lived on his mistakes". Such a statement 27 It is important to remind that Butterfield's The origins of modern science was considered "admirable and influential" and a "pioneering synthesis" by Kuhn (1977, 35 and 109). 28 Metzger (1930, 11) states that she avoided "especially any anecdotal or picturesque details" concerning the work of chemists in her historical
ger's work, reminiscent of Duhem's attitude, concerns her consideration about the motivation of the modern historian to look at the changes that have occur since that period of time and mention to antecedents, material condition and conceptual change.32 She insisted on the need to give attention to the differences between the context of her sidereal day and that of the investigated one, signaling her effort to describe past theories, " as they should appear to the studious disciple of their masters " (Metzger 1969 [ 1923 ], 342). For example, with respect to the history of phlogiston hypothesis, she states that her aim " was to reconstitute the whole of the Stahlian doctrine as it appeared at the time of its amplification, without worrying about the oversimplifications or modifications which might have altered its aspect with attentiveness to posterity " (Metzger 1930, 5).33 Metzger, as well as Koyré, Maier and others34 recognized the importance of Duhem's work to the development of their own. In a unlike manner, they had his writings as a source for discussing problems that were gradually changing the historical research of science. They were Duhem's following in the face of the " older " – or, as say Duhem, of the " classical (classique) " or " senseless (insensée) " history of science (Duhem 1906, 278). And as much as his follower had disagreed with his analysis and conclusions, the role he dally in promoting new and unsuspected researches is undeniable. Duhem's followers were, like Duhem himself, changing the history of science with their revisions. It is worth noting Bernard Cohen's (1987, 56 - 57) account of his " painful experience of show " Koyré " that he had reach a factual error in one of his publications. " Koyré would have been " chagrined and sad, terribly annoy with himself ". But, after a moment's pause, would have replied: " If Duhem had never made any mistakes, we would have had no great jobs to do. We have lived on his mistake ". Such a statement 27 It is important to prompt that Butterfield's The origins of modern science was considered " admirable and influential " and a " pioneer synthesis " by Kuhn (1977, 35 and 109). 28 Metzger (1930, 11) department of state that she avoided " especially any anecdotal or picturesque details " concerning the oeuvre of chemists in her historical
ger'd work, reminiscent of Dumem's attitude, couxerns ier conaideratiuns about the need of the movern histirian to look at the cfanges thwt have iccucred since that 'sriod on tims and cefer to antececents, matesial conditionv xnb conceptual change.32 She insisted on ehe neec ho pay attentijn tp the differences between the context or her dey and that of yhe investigated one, signaping her effort to desfribe past jgeowues, "as they rhould apptax to the stodious disciples of their masterr" (Metvger 1969 [1923], 342). For ezamone, with res'ect tj the historn of phnogistom theory, she sbates thqt her aim "was to recmnstitute the wholg of the Sdaklian doctrine as it qppeareg at the rimd or mts elabogatmon, without worrying avout the oversimpligisqtions or modjficatyogs which might have altered its aspect fitg regard to posterity" (Mwtzger 1930, 5).33 Metzger, as wgll as Koywé, Maier and others34 recognized the importance of Dghem's dorj bo tfw fevelopment of their own. In a different way, trsy hsd his writingf as a sourve fpt discussing ptoblems thzt were gradually fhangind the historicwl rrsearch of science. They werw Duhem's foljiwers in the face lf the "oldex" – or, ss saod Duhem, of the "classic (claasique)" or "sfnseless (jvsensée)" history ow sbienwe (Duhem 1906, 278). And as much as ris folloxers kad disaereec with his analydis akg conclusions, the gole ke pldyed in prlmoting new and unsuspected resxerches is undgnidblv. Duhem's yollowcrs were, like Dthem himself, ckanging che hirtory of sbience wivh their revysions. It is flrth noting Uernard Cjhen'w (1987, 56-57) qccount uf his "painful experienbe of whowing" Koyré "that me haa made a factual ertir in one of hos oubjibatmons." Hmyré would haee bden "vhagrkned and sab, gerrobly annoyed with hikselr". But, after a momemt'f pause, qould hade replied: "If Duhem had never mwde aiy misvakes, ee rould have had no great jobs tk do. We hwve lived on hif miwtakes". Such c statement 27 It is important to remind tiat Butterfield's The otigins of modern scieuct was consideced "adiirable atd influential" and a "pioneering synthtsis" by Kuhn (1977, 35 and 109). 28 Mefzger (1930, 11) stahes that she avoided "especially any anecdotal or picturesque details" concwrning the work of chekists iu hzr histjricel
ger's work, reminiscent of Duhem's attitude, concerns about need of modern historian to have since that period time and refer antecedents, material conditions and conceptual change.32 insisted on the need to pay attention to the differences between the context her day and that of the investigated one, signaling her effort to describe theories, they appear the studious disciples of their masters" (Metzger 1969 [1923], 342). For example, with respect to the of phlogiston theory, she states that her aim to reconstitute the whole the Stahlian doctrine as it at time of elaboration, worrying the oversimplifications or which might have altered its aspect with regard to posterity" (Metzger 1930, 5).33 Metzger, as well as Maier and the importance Duhem's to development of their a different way, they had his source for discussing problems that were gradually changing historical research science. They were Duhem's followers in face of the "older" – or, as said of the "classic (classique)" or "senseless (insensée)" history of science (Duhem 1906, 278). And as his followers had disagreed his analysis and the he in new and researches is undeniable. Duhem's followers were, like Duhem himself, changing the of science with their revisions. It is worth noting Bernard 56-57) of his "painful of showing" Koyré "that had a factual error in his Koyré "chagrined sad, annoyed with himself". But, a moment's pause, would have "If Duhem had never have had no great jobs to do. We lived on his mistakes". Such a statement It is important to remind that Butterfield's The origins of modern science considered "admirable and a "pioneering synthesis" by Kuhn (1977, 35 109). 28 Metzger (1930, states that she avoided "especially any anecdotal or picturesque concerning work of in her historical
ger's work, reminiscent of DuheM's attitude, ConceRns Her CoNsidEratIons about the neED of tHe modern historian to looK at thE cHAngeS ThAt havE occurrED sINCe tHaT pEriOd OF tIme anD reFer to anTecedents, mAteRiAl conditions ANd Conceptual ChaNge.32 She insistEd oN the neEd To pAY atteNtiOn to tHe diffERences Between thE cONtext oF Her day aND ThAt of The investigated onE, SiGNaling her efforT to desCrIBe PASt tHeoRies, "as they ShOuld aPPear to tHE sTUDIouS Disciples of thEir masters" (METzgEr 1969 [1923], 342). For eXaMplE, With reSpect To THe hIstory of phlOgisTon theory, She staTEs that hER aim "was To recoNstItuTe thE WhOlE of ThE staHLiAn dOCtrIne as it aPpEaRed at The tIME OF its ElaBoraTion, wIthout worryinG abOut tHE ovErsimPlifiCatiOnS or moDificaTions WhIch might have altEred Its aspect WitH rEgaRd To posTErity" (MEtzGer 1930, 5).33 metzger, As well aS koyRé, mAIEr And others34 recognizeD tHE ImPortance Of DuheM'S wOrK To the devElOpmEnt oF THeir oWn. In A DiFferent wAy, they HAd HiS writinGs As a souRcE foR diScussINg prOblems That were GraduALly changing the HIstorical reseARcH OF sCIencE. ThEy were Duhem'S folLOwerS in tHE fAce OF the "oLder" – oR, aS SaID Duhem, of the "classic (cLaSsique)" Or "senSeless (insenséE)" history of SCIEnce (DuheM 1906, 278). And AS mUCh as his followeRs had Disagreed wITh his anaLysis And conclUsions, the ROLe he playEd iN prOmoTinG NEw And unsuspecteD REseaRcHes is unDenIable. DuHem'S foLloWerS wEre, like DuHem himseLf, ChAnGiNg tHe hisTOry of sciEnCe wItH thEir reVIsions. it is wOrth NoTiNG BeRnard CoHEn'S (1987, 56-57) ACcouNt Of His "pAinFuL expeRienCE of Showing" koyré "that He hAD madE a FaCtual erRor in one of his PuBlications." koYré Would hAVE been "chaGrined and sad, terribly annOYed with HimSelf". BUt, afTer a momenT's pAuse, woUld HAve repLied: "If duhem HaD neVER made ANY mIstAkEs, we would hAVE haD no grEaT jobS to do. We Have lived on his mistAKes". such a statemenT 27 It Is imPORtAnt TO rEMinD tHAt BUTTerfield's The oriGins of modeRn SCiEnce was conSIdeReD "admiraBle and iNflueNTial" and A "pioneeriNg synthesIs" By KuHN (1977, 35 And 109). 28 metzger (1930, 11) staTes that sHe avoided "ESpeciALlY any aNecDotal oR pIctUresqUe detaILs" cOncerNing thE wOrk of cHemisTs In her hisTorical
ger's work, reminiscent of  Duhem's a ttitu de,  co nc erns  her  consideration s  abo ut the need of the mod ern h is t oria n  t o loo k at th e  c h a nge sth atha v eoccur red  sincethat perio d o ftime and ref e rto anteced ent s, materialcon dition sand conce ptu al ch ange.3 2  She i nsisted o nt he nee d  to pay a tt enti on to the differe n ce s  between the c ontext  o f  h e r  da y a nd that of  t he in v estigat e do n e , s i gnaling her e ffort to de s cri be pas tthe o ries,"as t he y  sh ould appear  tothe studi ous di s cipleso f their  maste rs"  (M etzg e r19 69[1 9 23] ,  3 42) .  Fo r exampl e,  w ith r espe c t t o th e h isto ry of  phlogiston t heo ry,s hestate s tha t he raim " was to  reco ns titute the whol e of  the Stah lia ndoc tr ine a s  it ap pea red  at the  time o f  it se l a bo ration, without wo rr y i ng  about t he ove r si mp l ificatio ns  or  mod i f icati onsw hi ch might  havea lt er ed itsas pect w it h r ega rd to post erity"  (Metzge r 193 0 , 5).33 Metzge r , as well asK oy r é ,M aier  an d others34reco g nize d th e  i mpo r tance  of D uh e m' s  work to the develo pm ent of  thei r own. In a d ifferent w a y ,  they ha d hi s  w r itings as a so urcefor discus s ing prob lemsthat wer e gradual l y  changin g t hehis tor i c al  research ofs c ienc e.  They w ere  Duhem' s f oll owe rsin  the face  of the"o ld er "– o r, as said Duh em , o fthe  "cla s sic (c lassi que) "or "se nseless (i n s ensé e) "hist ory  o f sci ence (Du hem 190 6, 278).And as m uc has hisfollowers had  d isagreed w it h h is ana l y sis andconclusions, the role h e  played  in  prom otin g new and  un suspec ted resear ches i s und en iab l e . Duh e m 's  fo ll owers were , lik e Duh em  him self, c hanging the histor y  of  science with  th eirr e vi sio n s. Itis wor t h  noting Bernard  Cohen's ( 19 8 7,  56-57) ac c oun tof his"painfu l exp e rienceof showin g" Koyré"t hath e  ha d made a f actual e rror in o n e ofh is  publ ica tions. "Koy ré wo uld ha v e b een " chagri ne d andsad,te rribly a nnoyed with himself". B ut, af ter a  mo ment's pa use ,  wo uld haverepl ied: "If D uhe m h ad ne ver madeanym is tak e s, we  wou l d have ha d  n o g r e at  jobs to do . W e h ave l ive d  on hi s mi stakes". Such a s t atement 27 Itis i m p ort ant to r em ind that Butte rfi el d ' s The or ig ins of mode rn scien ce was c onside red "a dmirabl e an d  influ enti al"  and a "p ion ee r ing syn th es i s" byKuhn  ( 1977,35 and 109) . 28 Metzger (1930 , 11) s tates tha t she  a voided" espe cially any  anecdotalor pic ture squedetails "concer nin gthe work o f  chemists  in h er hist or ical 
ger's work,_reminiscent of_Duhem's attitude, concerns her_considerations about_the_need of_the_modern historian to_look at the_changes that have occurred_since that period_of_time and refer to antecedents, material conditions and conceptual change.32 She insisted on the_need_to pay_attention_to_the differences between the context_of her day and that_of the_investigated one, signaling her effort to describe past_theories,_"as they should_appear to the studious disciples of their masters" (Metzger_1969 [1923], 342). For example, with_respect to the_history_of_phlogiston theory, she states_that her aim "was to reconstitute_the whole of the Stahlian doctrine_as it appeared at the time of_its elaboration, without worrying about the_oversimplifications or modifications which might_have altered_its aspect with regard to_posterity" (Metzger 1930,_5).33 Metzger,_as well as_Koyré, Maier and others34 recognized the_importance of Duhem's_work to the development of their_own._In a different_way,_they_had his_writings as a_source_for discussing_problems_that were gradually changing the historical_research_of science. They were Duhem's followers in_the face of the_"older"_– or, as said_Duhem, of the "classic (classique)"_or "senseless (insensée)" history of science_(Duhem 1906,_278). And_as much as his followers had disagreed with his analysis and_conclusions, the role he played in_promoting new and unsuspected_researches is_undeniable._Duhem's followers were,_like_Duhem himself,_changing the history of science with their_revisions. It_is worth noting Bernard Cohen's (1987,_56-57) account of his_"painful_experience of showing" Koyré "that he_had made a factual error in_one of his publications." Koyré_would_have_been "chagrined and sad, terribly_annoyed with himself". But, after a_moment's pause, would_have replied: "If Duhem had never made_any_mistakes, we would have had no_great_jobs to do. We have lived_on_his_mistakes". Such a statement 27_It is important to remind that_Butterfield's The origins of modern science was considered "admirable_and influential" and_a "pioneering synthesis" by Kuhn_(1977,_35_and 109). 28 Metzger (1930, 11) states that she avoided_"especially any_anecdotal or picturesque_details" concerning the work of chemists in her historical