 [1962], 3). Kuhn presents the SSR as an essay about this image emergent from the "new historiography". Some years later, in an article published in 1968 – "The history of science" – Kuhn speaks again of a "new historiography" or, in a correlative way, of a "modern historiography of science" (Kuhn 1977). In this work, Duhem's name is mentioned twice. Firstly Duhem is positioned in a historiographic tradition that was more philosophical in its objectives. His writings are remembered alongside Whewell's and Mach's as those in which the "philosophical concerns became a primary motive for creative activity in the history of science" (Kuhn 1977, 106). Kuhn's second mention of Duhem is more expressive, because it occurs when he is writing about factors that have contributed to the historiographic change and mentions "another decisive event on the rise of the contemporary profession" (Kuhn 1977, 108): Almost a century after the Middle Ages had become important to the general historian, Pierre Duhem's search for the sources of modern science disclosed a tradition of medieval physical thought which, in contrast to Aristotle's physics, could not be denied an essential role in the transformation of physical theory that occurred in the seventeenth century. Too many of the elements of Galileo's physics and method were to be found there. But it was not possible, either, to assimilate it quite to Galileo's physics or to Newton's, leaving the structure of the so-called Scientific Revolution unchanged but extending it greatly in time. The essential novelties of seventeenth-century science would be understood only if medieval science had been explored first on its own terms and then as the base from which the "new science" sprang. More than any other, that challenge has shaped the modern historiography of science (Kuhn 1977, 108). In this article, Kuhn cites Duhem's Études sur Léonard de Vinci10 in the bibliography, among about 60 other works that support his argument. Here, Duhem's work seems very significant in the formation of a modern historiography of science. 11 So, the question that may be raised is: If Kuhn considers the rehabilitation of Middle Ages science to be significant to the emergence of a new historiography of science, why does he not cite Duhem among so many other scholars in his main book? This question invokes the attempts of some interpreters
[ 1962 ], 3). Kuhn presents the SSR as an essay about this image emergent from the " new historiography ". Some years subsequently, in an article publish in 1968 – " The history of science " – Kuhn speaks again of a " new historiography " or, in a correlative means, of a " modern historiography of science " (Kuhn 1977). In this oeuvre, Duhem's name is note twice. Firstly Duhem is positioned in a historiographic tradition that was more philosophic in its objectives. His writings are remembered alongside Whewell's and Mach's as those in which the " philosophical concern became a basal motive for creative activity in the history of skill " (Kuhn 1977, 106). Kuhn's second mention of Duhem is more expressive, because it occurs when he is writing about component that have contributed to the historiographic change and mention " another decisive consequence on the rise of the contemporaneous profession " (Kuhn 1977, 108 ): Almost a century after the Middle Ages had become important to the general historian, Pierre Duhem's search for the source of modern science disclosed a tradition of medieval forcible idea which, in contrast to Aristotle's physics, could not be denied an essential role in the transformation of physical theory that occurred in the seventeenth century. excessively many of the elements of Galileo's physics and method acting were to be discover there. But it was not potential, either, to assimilate it quite to Galileo's physics or to Newton's, leaving the structure of the so - called Scientific Revolution unchanged but extending it greatly in meter. The essential novelties of seventeenth - century science would be understood only if chivalric science had been explored first on its own terms and then as the base from which the " new science " spring. More than any other, that challenge has shaped the modern historiography of science (Kuhn 1977, 108). In this article, Kuhn cites Duhem's Études sur Léonard de Vinci10 in the bibliography, among approximately 60 other works that support his argument. Here, Duhem's work seems very significant in the formation of a modern historiography of skill. 11 So, the question that may be raised is: If Kuhn considers the rehabilitation of Middle Ages skill to be significant to the emergence of a new historiography of science, why does he not quote Duhem among so many early scholars in his main book? This motion invokes the attack of some interpreters
 [1962], 3). Nuhn presents the SSR as an essay about this ikage ejergent wrom the "new historiography". Done yeqrs later, in an articld publishvd in 1968 – "Tye hmstory of sciencx" – Kuhn speaks wgaiu if a "new histotiography" or, in a correlathvd cay, of a "modern historiography of scyence" (Kihj 1977). In this worh, Dunqm's hame is mentioned twice. Firstly Dugem is kositioned in a hixtoriographic tradition thwt wws more philosophifal in its ibjesrives. His wrktings are remembered zlongside Whewell's and Mach's as thosz in which jkw "pjhlosophical concvrns became a primary motive for creative sctmvitt in the history of srience" (Kuhn 1977, 106). Kuhn's fecond mettnon of Duhem is more wxpresshve, tecajwe kt kcrura when he is writinf about facrors that have conttiflyed to the hjstorijgwaphic change and mentions "another decivivs event on the rise of rhe contemporary profgssion" (Kuhg 1977, 108): Almost a century after the Middle Ages had bewome mmooruakb to rhf general historian, Pierre Duhem's search for ege spurces of modevn science disclosrd a jradition of mgdieval phgsical thought whifh, in cjntrawt to Ariftotke's physics, could not be debied an esseutiql role in the trausformation uf pnysicsl theory that occurred in fhe seventefnth centhfy. Too many of tfe vlemants of Galileo's physics agd method werz to be wounc therq. But it wws nob possible, either, tl assnmilade it quitf to Galileo's physics or to Newvpn's, leaving jhe stgucture oy the xo-called Sciegtific Revolutnon unchcnged cut extendpng it grxatly in timq. The essentidp novelties mf seveneeenrh-cebtury szkence would be understood only if medieval science mad bgeh explored firsc in its own termx avd ehvn es thq base from wvich thd "new rcience" sprcne. Mote than any other, thdt cgallenge has shapec bhe moderb historyography of svience (Kuhn 1977, 108). In tjis acticle, Kuhn cijes Duhem's Études sur Léonard de Binci10 in hhe bibliographr, aming about 60 ocher works that support his argument. Herx, Duhem's work seems vety significant in the normation of a moqern histmriography of sciencw. 11 So, the questiok that may be raised ia: If Kghn clnsiders the rehabilitation of Middle Ages science to be significant to tye emecgqnce of a nsw hostorpogxapky of ssienre, why does he not cite Duhem among so many other scholarv nn his main book? This questiom knvokes the ajtempts of some interpreteds
[1962], 3). Kuhn presents the SSR as about image emergent the "new historiography". article in 1968 – history of science" Kuhn speaks again of a "new or, in a correlative way, of a "modern historiography of science" (Kuhn 1977). this work, Duhem's name is mentioned twice. Firstly Duhem is positioned in a tradition was philosophical its objectives. His writings are remembered alongside Whewell's and Mach's as those in which the "philosophical became a primary motive for creative activity in history of science" (Kuhn 106). Kuhn's second mention of is expressive, because occurs he writing about factors have contributed to the historiographic change and mentions "another decisive event on the rise of the contemporary (Kuhn 1977, a century the Ages become important to historian, Pierre Duhem's search for the science disclosed a tradition of medieval physical thought in contrast Aristotle's physics, could not be denied essential role in the transformation of physical theory occurred in the seventeenth century. Too many of the elements of Galileo's physics and method be found there. But was not possible, to it to physics or Newton's, leaving the structure of the so-called Scientific Revolution unchanged but it greatly in time. The essential novelties of seventeenth-century science understood if medieval science been explored first on own and then as the which "new than other, challenge has shaped the historiography of science (Kuhn 1977, In this article, Kuhn de Vinci10 in the bibliography, among about 60 works that support his argument. Here, Duhem's seems very significant in the formation of a modern historiography of science. So, the may be raised is: If Kuhn considers the of Middle Ages science be significant to the emergence of a new historiography science, does he cite Duhem among many other scholars his main book? invokes the of interpreters
 [1962], 3). Kuhn presents the SSR as an essAy about thiS imagE emErgEnT froM the "New historiograPHy". SoMe years later, in an articlE publIsHEd in 1968 – "tHe HistoRy of sciENcE" – kUhn SpEaKs aGaIN oF a "new HisToriogrAphy" or, in a cOrrElAtive way, of a "mODeRn historioGraPhy of science" (kuhN 1977). In thiS wOrk, dUhem's NamE is meNtioneD Twice. FIrstly DuhEm IS positIOned in a HIStOrioGraphic tradition tHAt WAs more philosopHical iN iTS oBJEctIveS. His writinGs Are reMEmbered ALoNGSIde wHewell's and MacH's as those in WHicH the "phIlOsoPHical cOncerNs BEcaMe a primary mOtivE for creatIve actIVity in tHE historY of sciEncE" (KuHn 1977, 106). KuHN's SeConD mENtiON oF DuHEm iS more expReSsIve, beCausE IT OCcurS whEn he Is wriTing about factOrs That HAve ContrIbuteD to tHe HistoRiograPhic cHaNge and mentions "aNothEr decisivE evEnT on ThE rise OF the coNteMpoRary proFession" (kUhn 1977, 108): alMOST a Century after the MidDlE aGeS had becoMe impoRTaNt TO the geneRaL hiStorIAN, PierRe DuHEm'S search fOr the sOUrCeS of modeRn SciencE dIscLosEd a trADitiOn of meDieval phYsicaL Thought which, in COntrast to ArisTOtLE'S pHYsicS, coUld not be denIed aN EsseNtiaL RoLe iN The trAnsfoRmATiON of physical theory thAt OccurrEd in tHe seventeenth Century. Too MANY of the elEmenTS oF galileo's physicS and mEthod were tO Be found tHere. BUt it was nOt possiblE, EIther, to aSsiMilAte It qUITe To Galileo's phySICs or To newton's, LeaVing the StrUctUre Of tHe So-called SCientifiC REvOlUtIon UnchaNGed but exTeNdiNg It gReatlY In time. the esSentIaL nOVelTies of sEVeNTEentH-cEnTury SciEnCe wouLd be UNdeRstood oNly if mediEvaL ScieNcE hAd been eXplored first oN iTs own terms AnD thEn as thE BAse from wHich the "new science" sprang. mOre than Any Other, That Challenge Has Shaped The MOdern hIstoriOgrapHy Of sCIEnce (KUHN 1977, 108). IN thIs Article, KuhN CIteS DuheM's étudEs sur LéOnard de Vinci10 in the bIBliOgraphy, among aBouT 60 othER WoRks THaT SupPoRT hiS ARgument. Here, DuheM's work seemS vERy SignificanT In tHe FormatiOn of a moDern hIStoriogRaphy of scIence. 11 So, thE qUestION thAt may be raiSed is: If KUhn considERs the REhAbiliTatIon of MIdDle ages sCience TO be SigniFicant To The emeRgencE oF a new hisToriography of science, why Does he Not ciTe DUhem among So mANy oTher scholArs iN his main boOk? THis QuestIon INvokeS the ATtEmpTS of soMe inTErpreters
 [1962], 3). Kuhn presents  the SSR a s aness ayab outthis  image emergen t  fro m the "new historiogra phy".  S o me y e ar s lat er, ina na r tic le  p ubl is h ed  in 1 968  – "The  history o f s ci ence" – Kuhn sp eaks again  of  a "new hist ori ograph y"  or ,  in a  co rrela tive w a y, ofa "modern  h i storio g raphy o f sc ienc e" (Kuhn 1977). I n  t h is work, Duhem 's nam ei sm e nti one d twice. F ir stlyD uhem is po s i t ion e d in a histor iographic t r adi tion t ha t w a s more  phil os o phi cal in itsobje ctives. H is wri t ings ar e  rememb ered a lon gsi de W h ew el l's  a n d M a ch 'sa s t hose inwh ic h the  "ph i l o s ophi cal  con cerns  became a pri mar y mo t ive  forcreat iveac tivit y in t he hi st ory of science"  (Ku hn 1977,106 ).  Ku hn 's se c ond me nti onof Duhe m is mo r e e xp r e s si ve, because it occ ur s wh en he is  writi n gab o ut facto rs  th at h a v e con trib u te d to the  histo r io gr aphic c ha nge an dmen tio ns "a n othe r deci sive eve nt on the rise of th e  contemporary pr o f es s ion"  (K uhn 1977, 1 08): Almo st a ce ntu r y aft er th eM id d le Ages had becomeim portan t tothe general h istorian,P i e rre Duhe m'ss ea r ch for the sou rcesof moderns cience d isclo sed a tr adition o f medieval  ph ysi cal  th o u gh t which, in c o n tras tto Aris tot le's ph ysi cs,  co uld  n ot be den ied an e ss en ti al  ro le in the tran sf orm at ion  of p h ysical  theo ry t ha to ccu rred in th e seve nt ee nthcen tu ry. T oo m a nyof theelementsofG alil eo 's  physic s and methodwe re to be f ou ndthere. B ut it wa s not possible, either, to assi mil ate i t qu ite to Ga lil eo's p hys i cs orto New ton's ,lea v i ng th e st ruc tu re of thes o -ca lledSc ient ific Re volution unchanged but  extending it  gr eatl y in  ti m e. The  e s sen t i al novelties of  seventeen th - ce ntury scie n cewo uld beunderst ood o n ly if m edieval s cience ha dbeen e xpl ored first  on itsown terms and t h en  as t hebase f ro m w hichthe "n e w s cienc e" spr an g. Mor e tha nany othe r, that challenge has s hapedthe m ode rn histor iog r aph y of scie nce(Kuhn 1977 , 1 08) . Inthi s  arti cle, Ku hnc itesDuhe m 's Études su r L é o na rd de Vinci 1 0 inthe b ibl i ograph y, a mong about 60 oth e r works that s uppo r t  hi s a r gume nt . Here, Duhem' s w or k seems ve ry  significan t in the  f o rmati on ofa mode rn hist o r io g raphyof s cie nce. 11 S o,th e  questi on  t h at may  bera ised i s: IfK uhnc o nsiders the reha bilit a t ion o f  Mi ddleAg es scie n ce t o be signi ficant to t he eme rgen ce of  a newhi storio gra ph y of scien c e, why do es he  not ci te  Duh emamongso m a n y oth er s ch ola rs in his m ai n  b oo k ? T hisquest io n in vokes the attempts  of some in te rpr e t ers
 [1962],_3). Kuhn_presents the SSR as_an essay_about_this image_emergent_from the "new_historiography". Some years_later, in an article_published in 1968_–_"The history of science" – Kuhn speaks again of a "new historiography" or, in_a_correlative way,_of_a_"modern historiography of science" (Kuhn_1977). In this work, Duhem's_name is_mentioned twice. Firstly Duhem is positioned in a_historiographic_tradition that was_more philosophical in its objectives. His writings are remembered_alongside Whewell's and Mach's as those_in which the_"philosophical_concerns_became a primary motive_for creative activity in the history_of science" (Kuhn 1977, 106). Kuhn's_second mention of Duhem is more expressive,_because it occurs when he is_writing about factors that have_contributed to_the historiographic change and mentions_"another decisive event_on the_rise of the_contemporary profession" (Kuhn 1977, 108): Almost_a century after_the Middle Ages had become important_to_the general historian,_Pierre_Duhem's_search for_the sources of_modern_science disclosed_a_tradition of medieval physical thought which,_in_contrast to Aristotle's physics, could not be_denied an essential role_in_the transformation of physical_theory that occurred in the_seventeenth century. Too many of the_elements of_Galileo's physics_and method were to be found there. But it was not_possible, either, to assimilate it quite_to Galileo's physics or_to Newton's,_leaving_the structure of_the_so-called Scientific_Revolution unchanged but extending it greatly in_time. The_essential novelties of seventeenth-century science would_be understood only if_medieval_science had been explored first on_its own terms and then as_the base from which the_"new_science"_sprang. More than any other,_that challenge has shaped the modern_historiography of science_(Kuhn 1977, 108). In this article, Kuhn_cites_Duhem's Études sur Léonard de Vinci10_in_the bibliography, among about 60 other_works_that_support his argument. Here, Duhem's_work seems very significant in the_formation of a modern historiography of science. 11 So,_the question that_may be raised is: If_Kuhn_considers_the rehabilitation of Middle Ages science to be significant to_the emergence_of a new_historiography of science, why does he not cite Duhem among_so many other scholars in his main_book? This question invokes the attempts of some interpreters