 (Wray 2015, 168). 5 See Kuhn (2000, 291). 6 This view provided by Duhem in Le mixte et la combinaison chimique (1902), according to Kuhn, was dominant among the historians of science. So far as he knew, only Marie Boas would have explicitly indicated (until then) that Boyle did not believe in the existence of elements – a thesis defended by Kuhn in his article. 7 Among others, E. Meyerson, E. Burtt, M. Boas, H. Kopp, J. R. Partington, D. Mckie, H. Butterfield, H. Metzger, A. Koyré and R. Hooykaas are cited in SSR. 8 Kuhn cites six out of ten volumes of Le système du monde. The seventh volume was published only in 1956, shortly before Kuhn published his book. 9 A. Koyré, H. Butterfield, E. J. Dijksterhuis, A. C. Crombie, E. Burtt, M. Clagett, A. Maier and M. Boas are examples. In SSR, Kuhn's own Copernican revolution is cited half a dozen times. Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the change in the historiography of science: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 129 he announced a change that represents the beginning of a "historiographic revolution", of which representative historians have begun to ask new sorts of questions and to trace different, and often less than cumulative, developmental lines for the sciences. Rather than seeking the permanent contributions of an older science to our present vantage, they attempt to display the historical integrity of that science in its own time. They ask, for example, not about the relation of Galileo's views to those of modern science, but rather about the relationship between his views and those of his group, i.e., his teachers, contemporaries, and immediate successors in the sciences. Furthermore, they insist upon studying the opinions of that group and other similar ones from the viewpoint – usually very different from that of modern science – that gives those opinions the maximum internal coherence and the closest possible fit to nature (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3). Compared with the writings of historians of the older historiographic tradition "these historical studies suggest the possibility of a new image of science" (Kuhn 1996
(Wray 2015, 168). 5 See Kuhn (2000, 291). 6 This view provided by Duhem in Le mixte et la combinaison chimique (1902), according to Kuhn, was dominant among the historian of skill. indeed far as he knew, merely Marie Boas would have explicitly indicate (until then) that Boyle did not believe in the existence of element – a dissertation defended by Kuhn in his article. 7 Among others, E. Meyerson, E. Burtt, M. Boas, H. Kopp, J. R. Partington, D. Mckie, H. Butterfield, H. Metzger, A. Koyré and R. Hooykaas are cited in SSR. 8 Kuhn cites six out of ten volumes of Le système du monde. The seventh volume was publish only in 1956, shortly before Kuhn publish his book. 9 A. Koyré, H. Butterfield, E. J. Dijksterhuis, A. C. Crombie, E. Burtt, M. Clagett, A. Maier and M. Boas are examples. In SSR, Kuhn's own Copernican revolution is cited half a dozen fourth dimension. Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the change in the historiography of science: An psychoanalysis based on Kuhn's writings 129 he announce a change that represent the beginning of a " historiographic revolution ", of which representative historians have begun to ask new sort of questions and to trace different, and often less than cumulative, developmental lines for the sciences. Rather than seeking the permanent contributions of an older science to our present vantage, they attempt to display the historical integrity of that science in its own clock time. They ask, for example, not about the relation back of Galileo's views to those of modern science, but rather about the kinship between his views and those of his group, i.e., his teacher, contemporaries, and immediate successor in the sciences. Furthermore, they insist upon studying the opinions of that group and other similar one from the viewpoint – usually very different from that of modern skill – that gives those opinion the maximal inner coherence and the closest possible fit to nature (Kuhn 1996 [ 1962 ], 3). compare with the writings of historians of the older historiographic custom " these historical study suggest the possibility of a modern image of skill " (Kuhn 1996
 (Wrwy 2015, 168). 5 See Kuhn (2000, 291). 6 This vlew provided by Byhem ii Le miste et lx combinaison chimique (1902), accocdint to Juhn, was dominant amone the hisnorians od scmence. So far as is knew, only Mzvie Bmes would have ewplicitly itdicated (until tfeu) that Boyle did not believe in the qxistenve of elements – w thtsif dervnbed by Kuhn in his article. 7 Amohg othegs, E. Meyerson, E. Birtt, M. Boas, H. Kopp, J. R. Parhinghon, D. Mckie, H. Buttfrfield, H. Mgfzgqe, A. Koyré and R. Hooykaas are cited jn SSR. 8 Kuhn cites six out of tdn vokumes of Lg aydjème du monde. The feventh volume was pgblishec only in 1956, shovtly uefoee Kuhn published his book. 9 A. Koyré, H. Bujterfield, A. L. Dijksterhuis, A. C. Crimvie, E. Burdt, M. Xlaeetu, A. Mzier ajd J. Boas are examples. Ib SSR, Kuhn's own Coptrnybsn revolutioh is cytqd half a dozen times. Amélia J. Oliveira – Dugem's legacy for the chabge in the historiogrwphy of ssience: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 129 he antouncxd a emwvte that represents the beginning of a "historiogwzpnib revolution", of wmich representativr jixjorians have bggun to asi new sorts of quedtions wnd ti trace dyffetent, and often less than cunulative, devvlopnental lines for tke sciences. Xather than seeking the permanent eontrigutions of wn older azience to our prdsekt eantage, ufey attempt to difplay the hiscorical kntebrity jf that sclence in its own time. Thfy asn, xor examplf, not about the relation of Galmkeo's views tp dhove of mobern sgience, but rathqr about the rglationshnp betdeen his vpews and vhose of his group, i.e., his jeachers, contxmporarief, ane imnediate ruccessors in yhe scienbef. Fuethermore, they inslst ukoh studying the ipibions of that gtouo agd ovher fhmilar ones xrom thd viewooint – usuaouy vrry different from tvat kf modern science – tmat gives those o[inions the msximum internal cojerenre and the vlofest possible fit to nature (Kugn 1996 [1962], 3). Comoarcd with the wwitikgs jf historicns of the older historiographic traditiin "these historicao studies suggest tke possibilitb of a new imaga of science" (Kuhn 1996
(Wray 2015, 168). 5 See Kuhn (2000, This provided by in Le mixte according Kuhn, was dominant the historians of So far as he knew, only Boas would have explicitly indicated (until then) that Boyle did not believe in existence of elements – a thesis defended by Kuhn in his article. 7 others, Meyerson, Burtt, Boas, H. Kopp, J. R. Partington, D. Mckie, H. Butterfield, H. Metzger, A. Koyré and R. are cited in SSR. 8 Kuhn cites six of ten volumes of système du monde. The seventh was only in shortly Kuhn his book. 9 Koyré, H. Butterfield, E. J. Dijksterhuis, A. C. Crombie, E. Burtt, M. Clagett, A. Maier and M. are examples. Kuhn's own revolution cited a dozen times. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the historiography of science: An analysis based on Kuhn's 129 he a change that represents the beginning a "historiographic revolution", of which representative historians have to ask new sorts of questions and to trace different, and often less than cumulative, for the sciences. Rather seeking the permanent of older to present vantage, attempt to display the historical integrity of that science in its time. They ask, for example, not about the relation of to of modern science, rather about the relationship his and those of his his contemporaries, in sciences. they insist upon studying opinions of that group and similar ones from the from that of modern science – that gives opinions the maximum internal coherence and the possible fit to nature (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3). Compared with the writings historians of historiographic tradition "these historical studies suggest the possibility a new image of (Kuhn 1996
 (Wray 2015, 168). 5 See Kuhn (2000, 291). 6 This view providEd by Duhem iN Le miXte Et lA cOmbiNaisOn chimique (1902), accoRDing To Kuhn, was dominant among The hiStORianS Of ScienCe. So far AS hE KNew, OnLy marIe bOaS woulD haVe expliCitly indicAteD (uNtil then) that bOyLe did not beLieVe in the existEncE of eleMeNts – A ThesiS deFendeD by KuhN In his aRticle. 7 AmoNg OThers, E. mEyerson, e. bUrTt, M. BOas, H. Kopp, J. R. PartingTOn, d. mckie, H. ButterfiEld, H. MeTzGEr, a. kOyrÉ anD R. Hooykaas ArE citeD In SSR. 8 KuHN cITES siX Out of ten volumEs of Le systèME du Monde. THe SevENth volUme waS pUBliShed only in 1956, sHortLy before KUhn pubLIshed hiS Book. 9 A. KoYré, H. BuTteRfiEld, E. j. diJkSteRhUIs, A. c. crOmbIE, E. BUrtt, M. ClaGeTt, a. MaieR and m. bOAS are ExaMpleS. In SSr, Kuhn's own CopeRniCan rEVolUtion Is citEd haLf A dozeN times. améliA J. oliveira – Duhem's lEgacY for the chAngE iN thE hIstorIOgraphY of SciEnce: An aNalysis BAseD oN kUHn'S writings 129 he announcEd A CHaNge that rEpreseNTs ThE BeginninG oF a "hIstoRIOgrapHic rEVoLution", of Which rEPrEsEntativE hIstoriAnS haVe bEgun tO Ask nEw sortS of questIons aND to trace differENt, and often lesS ThAN CuMUlatIve, DevelopmentAl liNEs foR the SCiEncES. RathEr thaN sEEkINg the permanent contrIbUtions Of an oLder science to Our present VANTage, they AtteMPt TO display the hisToricAl integritY Of that scIence In its own Time. They aSK, For exampLe, nOt aBouT thE RElAtion of GalileO'S ViewS tO those oF moDern sciEncE, buT raTheR aBout the reLationshIp BeTwEeN hiS viewS And those Of His GrOup, I.e., his TEacherS, contEmpoRaRiES, anD immediATe SUCcesSoRs In thE scIeNces. FUrthERmoRe, they iNsist upon StuDYing ThE oPinions Of that group anD oTher similaR oNes From thE VIewpoint – Usually very different froM That of mOdeRn sciEnce – That gives ThoSe opinIonS The maxImum inTernaL cOheRENce anD THe CloSeSt possible FIT to NaturE (KUhn 1996 [1962], 3). COmpared With the writings of hIStoRians of the oldEr hIstoRIOgRapHIc TRadItIOn "tHESe historical stuDies suggesT tHE pOssibility OF a nEw Image of Science" (kuhn 1996
 (Wray 2015, 168). 5 See K uhn (2000,  291) . 6  Th is  vie w pr ovided by Duhe m  inLe mixte et la combina isonch i miqu e  ( 1902) , accor d in g toKu hn , w as do minan t a mong th e historia nsof  science. So fa r as he kn ew,  only MarieBoa s woul dhav e  expl ici tly i ndicat e d (unt il then)th a t Boyl e  did no t be liev e in the existenc e  o f  elements – athesis  d e fe n d edbyKuhn in hi sartic l e. 7 Am o ng o t her s , E. Meyerson , E. Burtt, M.Boas,H.  Ko p p, J.R. Pa rt i ngt on, D. Mcki e, H . Butterf ield,H . Metzg e r, A. K oyré a ndR.Hooy k aa sare  c i ted in  SS R . 8  Kuhn ci te ssix o ut o f t e n vo lum es o f Lesystème du mo nde . Th e  se venth  volu me w as  publ ishedonlyin  1956, shortlybefo re Kuhn p ubl is hed  h is bo o k. 9 A . K oyr é, H. B utterfi e ld,  E . J .Dijksterhuis, A. C .C r om bie, E.Burtt, M.  C l agett, A .Mai er a n d  M. B oasa re  example s. InS SR ,Kuhn'sow n Cope rn ica n r evolu t ionis cit ed halfa doz e n times. Améli a  J. Oliveira–  D u h em ' s le gac y for the c hang e  intheh is tor i ograp hy of  s c ie n ce: An analysis bas ed  on Ku hn'swritings 129he announc e d a change  tha t  r e presents the b eginn ing of a " h istoriog raphi c revolu tion", of w hich rep res ent ati veh i st orians have b e g un t oask new  so rts ofque sti ons  an dto tracedifferen t,  a nd  o fte n les s  than cu mu lat iv e,devel o pmenta l lin es f or  t h e s ciences .  R a t herth an  see kin gthe p erma n ent  contri butions o f a n  old er  s cienceto our presen tvantage, t he y a ttempt t o displa y the historical integr i ty of t hat  scie ncein its ow n t ime. T hey ask, f or exa mple,  n ota b out t h e  r ela ti on of Gali l e o's  view sto t hose of  modern science, b u t r ather about t herela t i on shi p  b e twe en his v iews and thoseof his gro up ,  i .e., his t e ach er s, cont emporar ies,a nd imme diate suc cessors i nthes c ien ces. Furth ermore,they insi s t upo n  s tudyi ngthe op in ion s ofthat g r oup  andothersi milaronesfr om the v iewpoint – usually very  diffe rentfro m that of  mo d ern  science– th at gives t hos e o pinio nst he ma ximu m  i nte r nal c oher e nce and t h eclo s e st  possible f i t tonatur e ( K uhn 19 96 [ 1962], 3). Compar e d with the wri ting s ofhis t oria ns  of the olderhis to r i ographic  t radition "t hese his to r icalstudie s sugg est the p os s ibilit y of  anew image  of  s c ience"(K uh n  1996
 (Wray_2015, 168)._5 See Kuhn (2000,_291). 6_This_view provided_by_Duhem in Le_mixte et la_combinaison chimique (1902), according_to Kuhn, was_dominant_among the historians of science. So far as he knew, only Marie Boas would_have_explicitly indicated_(until_then)_that Boyle did not believe_in the existence of elements_– a_thesis defended by Kuhn in his article. 7_Among_others, E. Meyerson,_E. Burtt, M. Boas, H. Kopp, J. R. Partington,_D. Mckie, H. Butterfield, H. Metzger,_A. Koyré and_R._Hooykaas_are cited in SSR._8 Kuhn cites six out of_ten volumes of Le système du_monde. The seventh volume was published only_in 1956, shortly before Kuhn published_his book. 9 A. Koyré,_H. Butterfield,_E. J. Dijksterhuis, A. C._Crombie, E. Burtt,_M. Clagett,_A. Maier and_M. Boas are examples. In SSR,_Kuhn's own Copernican_revolution is cited half a dozen_times._Amélia J. Oliveira_–_Duhem's_legacy for_the change in_the_historiography of_science:_An analysis based on Kuhn's writings_129_he announced a change that represents the_beginning of a "historiographic_revolution",_of which representative historians_have begun to ask new_sorts of questions and to trace_different, and_often less_than cumulative, developmental lines for the sciences. Rather than seeking the_permanent contributions of an older science_to our present vantage,_they attempt_to_display the historical_integrity_of that_science in its own time. They ask,_for example,_not about the relation of Galileo's_views to those of_modern_science, but rather about the relationship_between his views and those of_his group, i.e., his teachers,_contemporaries,_and_immediate successors in the sciences._Furthermore, they insist upon studying the_opinions of that_group and other similar ones from the_viewpoint_– usually very different from that_of_modern science – that gives those_opinions_the_maximum internal coherence and the_closest possible fit to nature (Kuhn_1996 [1962], 3). Compared with the writings of historians_of the older_historiographic tradition "these historical studies_suggest_the_possibility of a new image of science" (Kuhn 1996