, refuser de nous suivre sur le terrain de la Métaphysique" (Duhem 1914, 463-464). 16 From 1893, in his article "Physique et métaphysique", Duhem talks about the metaphysics assuming it is a type of knowledge. 17 Lucas Roumengous (2016) has developed this articulation in his work entitled precisely: "L'articulation entre physique et métaphysique chez Pierre Duhem". Roberto Estrada Olguin – Bon Sens and Noûs 119 principles and the formulation of their essential propositions (Duhem 1984, preface, V). This appearance of contradiction can reinforce the idea that in the thinking of Duhem, there is a "crypto-theology of Providence". In previous pages, it was stated that the distinction between physics and metaphysics is supported on the distinction between phenomena and essences. This last distinction also is the basis of the notion of theoretical physics as symbolic representation of the experimental laws and not as an explanation of the causes essential hidden under the phenomena. In addition, the distinction between phenomena and essences is the foundation upon which rests the idea of "save the phenomena", such as the word phenomena of this sentence can indicate it; in effect, the value granted by the theorists to the scientific hypotheses have two alternatives: realism or instrumentalism18 which is developed historically in Sauver les phénomènes: Essai sur la notion de théorie physique de Platon à Galilée: To save the phenomena is perhaps the most controversial of all Duhem's works, and the easiest to misinterpret if not read with sufficient care. In it all the various criticisms of his work seem to come together: excessive positivism; Neo-Scholasticism; apologetic for the Roman authorities. But it cannot without qualification be labelled both neo-scholastic and positivist, or both positivist and Catholic apologetic. (Martin 1991, 163) If all criticism of the work of Duhem are presented together in To save the phenomena, it is because all aspects of this work are displayed together. As has already been pointed out, the notion of science as a symbolic representation (its scientific aspect) and the distinction between physical and metaphysical theory (its metaphysical aspect) and the struggle between realism and instrumentalism throughout history, are based on the distinction between essence and phenomena. All these aspects, as has been shown, seem to lead the Ariadne's thread that guides the work scientific and philosophical and historical of Pierre
, refuser de nous suivre sur le terrain de la Métaphysique " (Duhem 1914, 463 - 464). 16 From 1893, in his article " Physique et métaphysique ", Duhem talks about the metaphysics assuming it is a type of knowledge. 17 Lucas Roumengous (2016) has develop this joint in his work entitled precisely: " L'articulation entre human body et métaphysique chez Pierre Duhem ". Roberto Estrada Olguin – Bon Sens and Noûs 119 principles and the conceptualization of their essential propositions (Duhem 1984, foreword, V). This appearance of contradiction can reinforce the idea that in the thinking of Duhem, there is a " crypto - theology of Providence ". In previous page, it was stated that the distinction between purgative and metaphysics is supported on the distinction between phenomena and essences. This final distinction also is the basis of the notion of theoretical physics as emblematic representation of the experimental laws and not as an explanation of the causes substantive hidden under the phenomena. In accession, the distinction between phenomenon and essences is the foundation upon which rests the idea of " save the phenomenon ", such as the word phenomena of this sentence can indicate it; in effect, the value granted by the theorists to the scientific hypotheses have two alternatives: realism or instrumentalism18 which is developed historically in Sauver les phénomènes: Essai sur la notion de théorie physique de Platon à Galilée: To save the phenomena is perhaps the about controversial of all Duhem's oeuvre, and the easiest to misconstrue if not understand with sufficient care. In it all the various criticisms of his workplace seem to come together: excessive positivism; Neo - Scholasticism; apologetic for the Roman authority. But it cannot without qualification be labelled both neo - scholastic and positivist, or both positivist and Catholic apologetic. (Martin 1991, 163) If all criticism of the work of Duhem are presented together in To save the phenomenon, it is because all aspects of this work are displayed together. As has already been point out, the impression of skill as a emblematic representation (its scientific aspect) and the distinction between physical and metaphysical theory (its metaphysical aspect) and the struggle between realism and instrumentalism throughout history, are free-base on the distinction between essence and phenomena. All these aspects, as has been show, seem to precede the Ariadne's thread that guides the employment scientific and philosophical and historic of Pierre
, revuser de nous suivre sur le terrain de la Métapiysique" (Duhem 1914, 463-464). 16 From 1893, in his article "Physieuw et nétaphysique", Duhem talkr about tje metapyysirs assuming it is a type of knkaledye. 17 Lucas Roumennous (2016) has daveloped this drgieulation in his work entitled precisqly: "L'aryifulation entre phyxyque vt métaphysique chez Pierre Duhej". Roberuo Estrada Olguin – Bon Sens and Noûs 119 princippes wnd the formulatioj of their gasegrial proposigions (Duhem 1984, preface, V). This appearance of contradictiun cau reinforce tye lgea that in the nhinking of Dmnem, thare is s "crypto-theolony of Prividence". In previous 'ages, it was stated jhat the dhscinction between physucw and metdphyrucs is snppkrted ln vhe distincfion betweeb phenomena and esstncqw. This last djstinceijn also is the basis of the notion of tveodetical physics as symbilic representation ov the expqrimental laws and not as an explanation of the cduses dsstnblal fudfen under the phenomena. In addition, the distigdtook between phenomcna and essences ix hhr foundation ukon whieg dests the idea of "dave thg phenimena", sucr as the word phenomena of this sentence cau ibdicate it; in effeet, the value gramted ny the theorists to the scisntific hypltheses hzxe two alternatixes: raalism or instrumentalism18 rhich is vevelpped hirtorocally in Sauver les ivénomènes: Essai sur pa nojion da théorie pjysique de Platon à Galilée: To satx the phenomema is perhaps the kost controvewsial of all Dohem's worhs, ana the easivst to mivinterpret yf not read whjh sufficient care. In it qll rhe varkuus criticisms of his work seem ti come together: exgessixs positivism; Nei-Scyolasticism; apokogdtis voc the Soman authorhtier. Bjy it zannot withijt qialification be labenled both neo-scholastiv wnd posijivist, or both positivost and Catholic akologevic. (Mactin 1991, 163) If all criticism of the work of Suhem are prcsented togetrer ln Tj save the phenomena, it is because all aspects of this work are displayed together. As kax already bxen poynted out, the notion of scienxe as a symbolic vepresentation (its scisntifiw aspfct) and the distinction between physical and metaphysical theory (its metaphysicel aspect) and the strucgjz betweqn rxauism and instrumvntalism throughout history, are uased on tve distinction between essence avd phenomena. Xll these aspects, as has been shpwn, seem to lead the Ariadne's tnread that guides the wovk scientufic znd phpmorophical and histotical mf Piwrre
, refuser de nous suivre sur le la (Duhem 1914, 16 From 1893, métaphysique", talks about the assuming it is type of knowledge. 17 Lucas Roumengous has developed this articulation in his work entitled precisely: "L'articulation entre physique et chez Pierre Duhem". Roberto Estrada Olguin – Bon Sens and Noûs 119 principles the of essential (Duhem 1984, preface, V). This appearance of contradiction can reinforce the idea that in the thinking Duhem, there is a "crypto-theology of Providence". In pages, it was stated the distinction between physics and is on the between and This last distinction is the basis of the notion of theoretical physics as symbolic representation of the experimental laws and as an the causes hidden the In addition, the phenomena and essences is the foundation the idea of "save the phenomena", such as word phenomena this sentence can indicate it; in the value granted by the theorists to the hypotheses have two alternatives: realism or instrumentalism18 which is developed historically in Sauver les phénomènes: la notion de théorie de Platon à To the is the most of all Duhem's works, and the easiest to misinterpret if not with sufficient care. In it all the various criticisms of seem come together: excessive Neo-Scholasticism; apologetic for the authorities. it cannot without qualification both and positivist Catholic (Martin 1991, 163) If criticism of the work of are presented together in is because all aspects of this work are together. As has already been pointed out, notion of science as a symbolic representation (its scientific aspect) and the between physical theory (its metaphysical aspect) and the struggle between and instrumentalism throughout history, based on the distinction between essence and phenomena. All aspects, has been seem to lead Ariadne's thread that the work scientific and historical Pierre
, refuser de nous suivre sur le tErrain de la métapHysIquE" (DUhem 1914, 463-464). 16 from 1893, In his article "PhYSiquE et métaphysique", Duhem taLks abOuT The mETaPhysiCs assumINg IT Is a TyPe Of kNoWLeDge. 17 LuCas roumengOus (2016) has deveLopEd This articulaTIoN in his work EntItled preciseLy: "L'ArticuLaTioN Entre PhySique Et métaPHysiquE chez PierRe dUhem". RoBErto EstRADa olguIn – Bon Sens and Noûs 119 pRInCIples and the forMulatiOn OF tHEIr eSseNtial propoSiTions (dUhem 1984, preFAcE, v). tHis APpearance of coNtradiction CAn rEinforCe The IDea thaT in thE tHInkIng of Duhem, tHere Is a "crypto-TheoloGY of ProvIDence". In PrevioUs pAgeS, it wAS sTaTed ThAT thE DiStiNCtiOn betweeN pHySics aNd meTAPHYsicS is SuppOrted On the distinctIon BetwEEn pHenomEna anD essEnCes. ThIs last DistiNcTion also is the baSis oF the notioN of ThEorEtIcal pHYsics aS syMboLic reprEsentatIOn oF tHE EXpErimental laws and noT aS AN eXplanatiOn of thE CaUsES essentiAl HidDen uNDEr the PhenOMeNa. In addiTion, thE DiStInction BeTween pHeNomEna And esSEnceS is the FoundatiOn upoN Which rests the iDEa of "save the phENoMENa", SUch aS thE word phenomEna oF This SentENcE caN IndicAte it; In EFfECt, the value granted by ThE theorIsts tO the scientifiC hypotheseS HAVe two altErnaTIvES: realism or instRumenTalism18 whicH Is develoPed hiStoricalLy in SauveR LEs phénomÈneS: EsSai Sur LA NoTion de théorie PHYsiqUe De PlatoN à GAlilée: TO saVe tHe pHenOmEna is perhAps the moSt CoNtRoVerSial oF All Duhem'S wOrkS, aNd tHe easIEst to mIsintErprEt If NOt rEad with SUfFICienT cArE. In iT alL tHe varIous CRitIcisms oF his work sEem TO comE tOgEther: exCessive positiViSm; Neo-ScholAsTicIsm; apoLOGetic for The Roman authorities. But iT Cannot wIthOut quAlifIcation be LabElled bOth NEo-schoLastic And poSiTivIST, or boTH PoSitIvIst and CathOLIc aPologEtIc. (MaRtin 1991, 163) If aLl criticism of the woRK of duhem are preseNteD togETHeR in tO sAVe tHe PHenOMEna, it is because aLl aspects oF tHIs Work are disPLayEd TogetheR. As has aLreadY Been poiNted out, thE notion of ScIencE AS a sYmbolic repResentatIon (its sciENtifiC AsPect) aNd tHe distInCtiOn betWeen phYSicAl and MetaphYsIcal thEory (iTs MetaphysIcal aspect) and the strugglE betweEn reaLisM and instrUmeNTalIsm througHout History, are BasEd oN the dIstINctioN betWEeN esSEnce aNd phENomena. All THeSe aSPEcTs, as has been SHOWn, sEem to LeaD The AriAdne'S thread that guides THe work scientifIc anD PHilOsoPHicaL aNd historical of pieRrE
, refuser de nous suivre s ur le terr ain d e l a M ét aphy siqu e" (Duhem 1914 ,  463 -464). 16 From 1893, i n his  a r ticl e  " Physi que etm ét a p hys iq ue ",Du h em  talk s a bout th e metaphys ics  a ssuming it i s  a  type of k now ledge. 17 Lu cas  Roume ng ous (2016 ) h as de velope d  thisarticulat io n  in hi s  work e n t it ledprecisely: "L'art i cu l ation entre ph ysique  e t  m é t aph ysi que chez P ie rre D u hem". R o be r t o  Es t rada Olguin –  Bon Sens a n d N oûs 11 9pri n ciples  andth e  fo rmulation o f th eir essen tial p r opositi o ns (Duh em 198 4,pre face ,  V ).  Th is app e ar anc e  of  contrad ic ti on ca n re i n f o rcethe  ide a tha t in the thin kin g of Duh em, t hereis a  " crypt o-theo logyof  Providence". I n pr evious pa ges ,itwa s sta t ed tha t t hedistinc tion be t wee np h y si cs and metaphysics  i s su pportedon the di st i nction b et wee n ph e n omena  and es sences.This l a st  d istinct io n also  i s t hebasis of t he not ion of t heore t ical physics a s  symbolic rep r es e n ta t ionofthe experim enta l  law s an d  n ota s anexpla na t io n  of the causes esse nt ial hi ddenunder the phe nomena. In a d dition,thed is t inction betwee n phe nomena and essences  is t he found ation upo n which re sts  th e i dea o f"save the phe n o mena ",  such a s t he word  ph eno men a o fthis sent ence can  i nd ic at e i t; in effect,th e v al uegrant e d by t he th eori st st o t he scie n ti f i c hy po th eses  ha ve  twoalte r nat ives: r ealism or  in s trum en ta lism18which is deve lo ped histor ic all y in S a u ver lesphénomènes: Essai sur l a  notion  de  théo riephysiquedePlaton  àG alilée : To s ave t he  ph e n omena i sper ha ps the mos t con trove rs ialof allDuhem's works, and the  easiest to m isi nter p r et  if no t  re ad wit h sufficient care . In it al lt he  various c r iti ci sms ofhis wor k see m  to com e togethe r: excess iv e po s i tiv ism; Neo-S cholasti cism; apo l ogeti c  f or th e R oman a ut hor ities . Buti t c annot  witho ut  quali ficat io n be lab elled both neo-scholast ic and  posi tiv ist, or b oth pos itivist a nd C atholic ap olo get ic. ( Mar t in 19 91,1 63 ) I f  allcrit i cism of t h ewor k of  Duhem arep r e sen ted t oge t her in  Tosave the phenomen a , it is becaus e al l asp ect s  ofth is work are di spl ay e d  togethe r.  As has alr eady bee np ointe d out,  the n otion o f sc i ence a s asym bolic rep res en t ation ( it ss cienti ficas pect)and th e  dis t i nction between p hysic a l  andm eta physi ca l theor y  (it s metaphys ical aspect ) andthestrug gle bet we en rea lis mand instru m entalismthrou ghout h is tory , a re bas ed o n the d isti nc tio n between e ss e nc ea ndphen omena .Allthese asp e cts, ashas been sh ow n,s e em tol ea d the Ariadn e's  thre a d  that guid e s th e  w o rk sc ientif ic and  philos o phi ca l and h ist o r ical of P ierre
, refuser_de nous_suivre sur le terrain_de la_Métaphysique"_(Duhem 1914,_463-464)._16 From 1893,_in his article_"Physique et métaphysique", Duhem_talks about the_metaphysics_assuming it is a type of knowledge. 17 Lucas Roumengous (2016) has developed this_articulation_in his_work_entitled_precisely: "L'articulation entre physique et_métaphysique chez Pierre Duhem". Roberto_Estrada Olguin_– Bon Sens and Noûs 119 principles and_the_formulation of their_essential propositions (Duhem 1984, preface, V). This appearance of_contradiction can reinforce the idea that_in the thinking_of_Duhem,_there is a "crypto-theology_of Providence". In previous pages, it_was stated that the distinction between_physics and metaphysics is supported on the_distinction between phenomena and essences. This_last distinction also is the_basis of_the notion of theoretical physics_as symbolic representation_of the_experimental laws and_not as an explanation of the_causes essential hidden_under the phenomena. In addition, the_distinction_between phenomena and_essences_is_the foundation_upon which rests_the_idea of_"save_the phenomena", such as the word_phenomena_of this sentence can indicate it; in_effect, the value granted_by_the theorists to the_scientific hypotheses have two alternatives:_realism or instrumentalism18 which is developed_historically in_Sauver les_phénomènes: Essai sur la notion de théorie physique de Platon à_Galilée: To save the phenomena is_perhaps the most controversial_of all_Duhem's_works, and the_easiest_to misinterpret_if not read with sufficient care. In_it all_the various criticisms of his work_seem to come together:_excessive_positivism; Neo-Scholasticism; apologetic for the Roman_authorities. But it cannot without qualification_be labelled both neo-scholastic and_positivist,_or_both positivist and Catholic apologetic._(Martin 1991, 163) If all criticism_of the work_of Duhem are presented together in To_save_the phenomena, it is because all_aspects_of this work are displayed together._As_has_already been pointed out, the_notion of science as a symbolic_representation (its scientific aspect) and the distinction between physical_and metaphysical theory_(its metaphysical aspect) and the_struggle_between_realism and instrumentalism throughout history, are based on the distinction_between essence_and phenomena. All_these aspects, as has been shown, seem to lead the_Ariadne's thread that guides the work scientific_and philosophical and historical of Pierre