 science from the one supplied by writers in the older historiographic tradition. 12 In RSS, Kuhn (2000, 235) says: "When I entered history of science, it was customary, largely due to the influence of Pierre Duhem, to speak of'medieval science' and I often used that highly questionable phrase myself". 13 Jaki (1987, 370) cites works by Cardwell and Beauregard, who explore the comparison of similarities between Duhem and Kuhn, noting that the matter is dealt with politeness and fear by the former, and discretion by the latter. His considerations are limited to a note. 14 Kuhn (1996 [1962], 99) explores the example of the "much-maligned phlogiston theory". 15 "When oxygen was discovered?" is Kuhn's example (1996 [1962], 2), by which he refers again to the history of the development of chemistry. 16 Alexandre Koyré's writings are considered here as, "perhaps", the best example of this new way to investigate the past of science. Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the change in the historiography of science: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 131 From these brief considerations, it is possible to extract some important features that distinguish the work of some historians from those that represent the older historiography. Those who were promoting the revolution showed that the history of science (1) could and should be more than a repository for anecdotes or chronologies, (2) can no longer be conducted by the debates about priorities and (3) was based on an attempt to understand the past in its own terms. These features are interrelated and have implications in other aspects that, as we shall see, would constitute the modern history of science. Now I will try to show that those features are fundamental in Duhem's work. Duhem: A Source for the New History of Science Duhem's work in no way resembles the old manuals of the history of science, which are a repository for more of the anecdotes or chronologies. It is a repository of ideas, discussion and reflections. If we compare it with, for example, Sarton's, the differences are enormous, although Sarton had also been a historian devoted to the study of medieval science.17 Crombie (1959, 164), by the way, helps us think in this comparison in his review of two of Sarton's works, by saying that "Sarton was a
science from the one supplied by writers in the older historiographic custom. 12 In RSS, Kuhn (2000, 235) say: " When I entered history of science, it was accustomed, largely due to the influence of Pierre Duhem, to talk of'medieval science' and I often practice that highly questionable phrase myself ". 13 Jaki (1987, 370) cites oeuvre by Cardwell and Beauregard, who explore the comparison of similarities between Duhem and Kuhn, note that the matter is dealt with politeness and concern by the former, and discretion by the latter. His considerations are limited to a note. 14 Kuhn (1996 [ 1962 ], 99) explores the example of the " a lot - maligned phlogiston theory ". 15 " When oxygen was discovered? " is Kuhn's exemplar (1996 [ 1962 ], 2), by which he refers again to the history of the development of chemistry. 16 Alexandre Koyré's writing are considered here as, " possibly ", the best exercise of this new way to investigate the past of science. Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's bequest for the change in the historiography of science: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 131 From these brief consideration, it is potential to extract some important features that distinguish the work of some historians from those that represent the aged historiography. Those who were promote the revolution show that the history of skill (1) could and should be more than a depository for anecdotes or chronologies, (2) can no longer be conducted by the debates about priorities and (3) was based on an attempt to understand the past in its own term. These features are interrelated and have implications in other aspects that, as we shall visualize, would constitute the modern history of science. Now I will try to show that those feature of speech are fundamental in Duhem's work. Duhem: A Source for the New History of Science Duhem's work in no way resemble the old manuals of the history of science, which are a repository for more of the anecdotes or chronologies. It is a repository of ideas, discussion and reflections. If we compare it with, for exercise, Sarton's, the differences are enormous, although Sarton had besides been a historian devoted to the study of medieval science.17 Crombie (1959, 164), by the way, helps us remember in this comparison in his review of two of Sarton's oeuvre, by saying that " Sarton was a
 sclence from the one supplled by writers iu the onder hjstoriogfaphic tradition. 12 In RSS, Kuhi (2000, 235) ways: "Qhen I entered history of scienbe, it was cusuomary, largely dux to the influskce oy 'ierre Duhem, to speak of'madieval scienca' xnb I often used that highly questionafle phrssf myself". 13 Jaki (1987, 370) cptqs wkgkw by Cardwell and Beauregard, sho expnore the compsrison of similarities betaeen Duhem and Kuhn, nohing that tye mwrter is dealg with polpceness and rear by the former, and discretiun by the lattet. Gid consideratmons age limited to a note. 14 Kuhn (1996 [1962], 99) explores the exemplw of the "much-maligned phlogiston theory". 15 "When oxfgzn was discovered?" is Juyn's efampne (1996 [1962], 2), by whjci hs refegs egain to ths history od the development og syemistry. 16 Alesandre Kjyré's writings are considered here as, "peghapa", the best example of tyis new way to investlgate the past of science. Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy xor tie chckne iv tje historiography of science: An analysis baseq om Luhn's writings 131 From thesr hrogf consideratiuns, it is possible to extraft some impoetant feauures that distinguish the work if some histjeians from those tkat represenc the plder historiography. Those wko wers promoting the revomjtion showed thag tme vistory of science (1) could wnd shoulv be kore thxn a reposytory for wnecdotes or chronologied, (2) cau no nonger be fonducted by the debates about 'ciorities and (3) fas based ou an abtempt to underftand the past in its own germs. Thesv featurev are interwelated and hdge implicatimns in oeher aspwcts thxg, as we shall xee, would constitutw the modern histovy of acience. Now I wnuo try to show tnat thjsv fxaturqv are fundamantau iv Duheo's work. Duhcm: X Soirce for the New Hisdory of Science Duhem's wjrk in ni way refembles the okd manuals of the jistocy of rcienve, rhich are a repository for mors of the wnegdotes or chrjnoligies. It is c repository of ideas, discussion and refoections. If we compare it with, for excmkle, Sarton's, tie difserences dre enormous, althougy Sarton had also been a historian devkted tm the study of medieval science.17 Crombie (1959, 164), by the way, helps us think in this conparison in his rebiew of tfo pf Sareon's xorks, by saying tnat "Sarton was a
science from the one supplied by writers older tradition. 12 RSS, Kuhn (2000, history science, it was largely due to influence of Pierre Duhem, to speak science' and I often used that highly questionable phrase myself". 13 Jaki (1987, cites works by Cardwell and Beauregard, who explore the comparison of similarities between and noting the is dealt with politeness and fear by the former, and discretion by the latter. His considerations limited to a note. 14 Kuhn (1996 [1962], explores the example of "much-maligned phlogiston theory". 15 "When was is Kuhn's (1996 2), which he refers to the history of the development of chemistry. 16 Alexandre Koyré's writings are considered here as, "perhaps", best example new way investigate past science. Amélia J. Duhem's legacy for the change in science: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 131 these brief it is possible to extract some features that distinguish the work of some historians those that represent the older historiography. Those who were promoting the revolution showed that the science (1) could and be more than repository anecdotes chronologies, can no be conducted by the debates about priorities and (3) was based an attempt to understand the past in its own terms. are and have implications other aspects that, as shall would constitute the modern science. I show those are fundamental in Duhem's Duhem: A Source for the History of Science Duhem's the old manuals of the history of science, are a repository for more of the or chronologies. It is a repository of ideas, discussion and reflections. If compare it example, Sarton's, the differences are enormous, although Sarton also been a historian to the study of medieval science.17 Crombie (1959, 164), the helps us in this comparison his review of of Sarton's works, that "Sarton a
 science from the one supplied By writers iN the oLdeR hiStOrioGrapHic tradition. 12 In rsS, KuHn (2000, 235) says: "When I entered histOry of ScIEnce, IT wAs cusTomary, lARgELY duE tO tHe iNfLUeNce of pieRre DuheM, to speak of'MedIeVal science' anD i oFten used thAt hIghly questioNabLe phraSe MysELf". 13 JakI (1987, 370) ciTes woRks by CARdwell And BeaureGaRD, who exPLore the COMpArisOn of similarities bETwEEn Duhem and Kuhn, Noting ThAT tHE MatTer Is dealt witH pOliteNEss and fEAr BY THe fORmer, and discreTion by the laTTer. his conSiDerATions aRe limItED to A note. 14 Kuhn (1996 [1962], 99) exPlorEs the examPle of tHE "much-maLIgned phLogistOn tHeoRy". 15 "WhEN oXyGen WaS DisCOvEreD?" Is KUhn's examPlE (1996 [1962], 2), bY whicH he rEFERS agaIn tO the HistoRy of the develoPmeNt of CHemIstry. 16 alexaNdre koYré's wRitingS are cOnSidered here as, "peRhapS", the best eXamPlE of ThIs new WAy to inVesTigAte the pAst of scIEncE. AMÉLIa j. Oliveira – Duhem's legAcY FOr The changE in the HIsToRIography Of SciEnce: aN AnalySis bASeD on Kuhn's WritinGS 131 FRoM these bRiEf consIdEraTioNs, it iS PossIble to Extract sOme imPOrtant features THat distinguisH ThE WOrK Of soMe hIstorians frOm thOSe thAt rePReSenT The olDer hiStORiOGraphy. Those who were pRoMoting The reVolution showeD that the hiSTORy of scieNce (1) cOUlD And should be morE than A repositorY For anecdOtes oR chronolOgies, (2) can nO LOnger be cOndUctEd bY thE DEbAtes about prioRITies AnD (3) was basEd oN an atteMpt To uNdeRstAnD the past iN its own tErMs. thEsE feAtureS Are interReLatEd And Have iMPlicatIons iN othEr AsPEctS that, as WE sHALl seE, wOuLd coNstItUte thE modERn hIstory oF science. NOw I WIll tRy To Show thaT those featureS aRe fundamenTaL in duhem's WORk. Duhem: A source for the New History oF science duhEm's woRk in No way reseMblEs the oLd mANuals oF the hiStory Of SciENCe, whiCH ArE a rEpOsitory for MORe oF the aNeCdotEs or chrOnologies. It is a repoSItoRy of ideas, discUssIon aND ReFleCTiONs. IF wE ComPARe it with, for examPle, Sarton's, ThE DiFferences aRE enOrMous, altHough SaRton hAD also beEn a historIan devoteD tO the STUdy Of medieval Science.17 CRombie (1959, 164), by tHE way, hELpS us thInk In this CoMpaRison In his rEVieW of twO of SarToN's workS, by saYiNg that "SaRton was a
 science from the one supp lied by wr iters  in  th eolde r hi storiographict radi tion. 12 In RSS, Kuhn(2000 ,2 35)s ay s: "W hen I e n te r e d h is to ryof sc ience , i t was c ustomary,lar ge ly due to th e  i nfluence o f P ierre Duhem,  to  speak  o f'm e dieva l s cienc e' and I ofte n used th at highly questio n a bl e ph rase myself". 13J ak i  (1987, 370) c ites w or k sb y  Ca rdw ell and Be au regar d , who e x pl o r e  th e  comparison o f similarit i esbetwee nDuh e m andKuhn,  n o tin g that thematt er is dea lt wit h  polite n ess and  fearbythe  for m er ,and  d i scr e ti onb y t he latte r.  H is co nsid e r a t ions  ar e li mited  to a note. 1 4 K uhn( 199 6 [19 62],99)ex plore s theexamp le  of the "much-m alig ned phlog ist on  th eo ry".1 5 "Whe n o xyg en wasdiscove r ed? "i s Ku hn's example (1996  [ 1 9 62 ], 2), b y whic h  h er efers ag ai n t o th e histo ry o f  t he devel opment of  c hemistr y.  16 Al ex and reKoyré ' s wr itings  are con sider e d here as, "pe r haps", the be s te x am p le o f t his new way  toi nves tiga t ethe pastof sc ie n ce .  Amélia J. Oliveira  –  Duhem 's le gacy for thechange int h e  histori ogra p hy of science: An  anal ysis based on Kuhn' s wri tings 13 1 From th e s e briefcon sid era tio n s ,it is possibl e to e xt ract so meimporta ntfea tur esth at distin guish th ewo rk  o f s ome h i storians  f rom  t hos e tha t  repre senttheol de r  hi storiog r ap h y . Th os ewhower epromo ting the  revolu tion show edt hatth ehistory  of science ( 1)  could and  s hou ld bem o re thana repository for anecdo t es or c hro nolog ies,  (2) cannolonger  be conduc ted by  thede bat e s  abou t pr ior it ies and (3 ) was  base don a n attem pt to understand t h e p ast in its ow n t erms . Th ese fe a tur es are i nterrelated and  have impl ic a ti ons in oth e r a sp ects th at, aswe sh a ll see,  would co nstituteth e mo d e rnhistory of  science . Now I w i ll tr y  t o sho w t hat th os e f eatur es are fun damen tal in  D uhem's  work .Duhem: A  Source for the New His tory o f Sci enc e Duhem's  wo r k i n no wayrese mbles theold  ma nuals  of the h isto r yofs cienc e, w h ich are a re pos i t or y for moreo f the  anec dot e s or c hron ologies. It is ar epository of i deas , dis cus s ionan d reflections.  If  w e compareit  with, forexample,  S a rton' s, the  diffe rencesa r ee normou s, a lth ough Sart onha d  also b ee na  histo rian  d evoted  to th e  stu d y  of medieval sci ence. 1 7  Crom b ie(1959 ,164), b y  the  way, help s us thinkin thi s co mpari son inhi s revi ewof  two of Sa r ton's wor ks, b y sayin gthat  "S artonwasa 
 science_from the_one supplied by writers_in the_older_historiographic tradition._12_In RSS, Kuhn_(2000, 235) says:_"When I entered history_of science, it_was_customary, largely due to the influence of Pierre Duhem, to speak of'medieval science' and_I_often used_that_highly_questionable phrase myself". 13 Jaki_(1987, 370) cites works by_Cardwell and_Beauregard, who explore the comparison of similarities between_Duhem_and Kuhn, noting_that the matter is dealt with politeness and fear_by the former, and discretion by_the latter. His_considerations_are_limited to a note._14 Kuhn (1996 [1962], 99) explores_the example of the "much-maligned phlogiston_theory". 15 "When oxygen was discovered?" is_Kuhn's example (1996 [1962], 2), by_which he refers again to_the history_of the development of chemistry._16 Alexandre Koyré's_writings are_considered here as,_"perhaps", the best example of this_new way to_investigate the past of science. Amélia_J._Oliveira – Duhem's_legacy_for_the change_in the historiography_of_science: An_analysis_based on Kuhn's writings 131 From_these_brief considerations, it is possible to extract_some important features that_distinguish_the work of some_historians from those that represent_the older historiography. Those who were_promoting the_revolution showed_that the history of science (1) could and should be more_than a repository for anecdotes or_chronologies, (2) can no_longer be_conducted_by the debates_about_priorities and_(3) was based on an attempt to_understand the_past in its own terms. These_features are interrelated and_have_implications in other aspects that, as_we shall see, would constitute the_modern history of science. Now_I_will_try to show that those_features are fundamental in Duhem's work._Duhem: A Source_for the New History of Science Duhem's_work_in no way resembles the old_manuals_of the history of science, which_are_a_repository for more of the_anecdotes or chronologies. It is a_repository of ideas, discussion and reflections. If we compare_it with, for_example, Sarton's, the differences are_enormous,_although_Sarton had also been a historian devoted to the study_of medieval_science.17 Crombie (1959,_164), by the way, helps us think in this comparison_in his review of two of Sarton's_works, by saying that "Sarton was a