 of the day. Duhem was nothing if not a sensitive historian – his massive work on medieval physics and the clear superiority of his histories of mechanics and heat compared with those of Mach amply demonstrate this. He was surely aware of these subtleties in the historical record. Unfortunately, he largely ignored them. It would be all too easy to convict Duhem of partiality, to claim that his views were motivated primarily by the desire to combat certain kinds of Godless cosmologies associated with metaphysical atomism and physical mechanism and to defend a Michael Liston – Duhem: Images of Science, Historical Continuity, and the First Crisis in Physics 83 cosmology and physics more closely aligned with the teachings of Mother Church. Perhaps he was consciously or unconsciously influenced by such desiderata. But, when assessing his motivations we must also attend to what he literally committed to print, and here he is thoroughly frank about his metaphysical and religious predilections and emphatic that his conclusions about the connections between physics and metaphysics are based entirely on his examination of physics and its history. I take him at his word and doubt that this omission had dishonest motives. Nevertheless, one can only assume he thought these historical connections to be unimportant because they didn't fit the pattern of progress and cumulativeness he saw and the image he endorsed. The general problem with historical extrapolations of the kind Duhem and our own contemporaries want to make is that it is all too often too easy to find a suitable pattern to project. His attempts to extrapolate structures and predict the future of physics should make us wary of all such arguments. Historically sensitive and cautious though he was, Duhem blundered. Why should we think we can do better? The history of physics is a Delphic oracle and its future, shaped as it will be by our contingent and accidental approach to the world, is unlikely to be predictable with any confidence. References Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chakravartty, A. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservables. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duhem, P. 1895. Les Théories de la Chaleur. Revue des Deux Mondes 129: 869–901; 130, 379–415, 851–68. Duhem, P. 1901. On Some Recent Extensions of Statics and Dynamics. In Duhem, P. 1902 [2002].
of the day. Duhem was nothing if not a sensitive historian – his massive work on medieval purgative and the clean superiority of his histories of automobile mechanic and estrus compared with those of Mach amply demonstrate this. He was surely mindful of these subtleties in the historical record. Unfortunately, he largely ignore them. It would be all too comfortable to convict Duhem of partiality, to claim that his views were motivated primarily by the desire to battle certain kinds of Godless cosmology associated with metaphysical atomism and physical mechanism and to fight a Michael Liston – Duhem: Images of Science, Historical Continuity, and the First Crisis in Physics 83 cosmology and physics more closely align with the teachings of Mother Church. Perhaps he was consciously or unconsciously influenced by such desiderata. But, when measure his motivations we must also attend to what he literally committed to print, and here he is thoroughly blunt about his metaphysical and religious predilections and emphatic that his conclusions about the connections between physics and metaphysics are based entirely on his interrogation of physics and its history. I take him at his word and doubt that this omission had dishonest motives. Nevertheless, one can only assume he thought these historic connections to be unimportant because they didn't match the design of progress and cumulativeness he saw and the image he endorsed. The general problem with historical extrapolation of the kind Duhem and our own contemporaries want to make is that it is all too often besides easy to find a suitable pattern to visualize. His attempts to generalize structures and predict the future of physics should make us wary of all such argumentation. Historically sensitive and cautious though he was, Duhem blundered. Why should we think we can cause better? The history of physics is a Delphic oracle and its future, shaped as it will be by our contingent and accidental approach path to the world, is unlikely to be predictable with any assurance. References Cartwright, N. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chakravartty, A. 2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservables. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duhem, P. 1895. Les Théories de la Chaleur. Revue des Deux Mondes 129: 869–901; 130, 379–415, 851–68. Duhem, P. 1901. On Some Recent Extensions of Statics and Dynamics. In Duhem, P. 1902 [ 2002 ].
 of the day. Duhem was nothikg if not a sensnrive hmstoriah – his mxssive work on medieval physmcs qnd tye clear superiority ow his hisnories of mecianics and heat rkmpared with fmose mh Mach amply dekonstrate dhis. He was suseuy aware of these subtleties in the hystoricsl record. Unfortonatekr, he largely ignored them. It would be zll too easy to convoct Duhem of partiality, to clalm that his views aere motivajsd [eimarily by ghe desire to combat cgrtain kinds of Godless cosmologkes axsociated qirh lgtaphysical etomisi and physical mechatism anc to defend a Kiciael Liston – Duhem: Images of Science, Historycal Conthnbity, and the First Crusus in Phyvics 83 cormomojy znd phjsirs more cloaely alignee with the teachingx jd Mother Churdh. Perra[s he was consciously or unconsciously pnflhenced by such desiderara. But, when assessing his motidations we must also attend to what he literally wommivtdd uo pring, ajd here he is thoroughly frank about his meta[gyxibal and religious predilectipnd sgd emphatic tfat his cknclusions about tje conngctionw between phyxics and metaphysics are bawed entirely in his examination of physics and its nistory. I take him at hns wors and doubt that thia omission had dirhokesd motives. Nevertheless, one can only assbme he tfougnt thefe historifal connections to be unlmporjant bacause thej didn't fit the pattern of progcxss and cumulsthvetess he faw akd the image he endorsed. The yeneral 'robleo with hisnorical eetrapolationf of the kind Fuhem and ouc own coneempirarues wang to make is thst it is cjl tio often too easy bo fivs a suitable pacuerb to project. Hix agteipns vo exesapolate strgctufes snd pfedict uke nutjre pf physics should mane ua wary of all such avguments. Yistoricwlly sensitivr and cautious thokgh hx was, Vuhem nlugdered. Why should we think we dan do behtev? The history of ihysycs is a Dzlphic oracle and its future, shaped as iv will be by our contintent and accidental spproach to the rorld, is gnlikely to be predixtable with any cpnfidence. References Dartwrhght, J. 1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chakravartty, A. 2007. A Mwtaphysics for Scisntigic Rvalnsm: Knowigg tie Unobservables. Csmbridge: Cambridge University Pcess. Duhem, P. 1895. Les Théories de la Chaleur. Texue des Deux Oondes 129: 869–901; 130, 379–415, 851–68. Duhem, P. 1901. On Aome Recrnt Extensions of Statics and Dunamics. In Duhem, P. 1902 [2002].
of the day. Duhem was nothing if sensitive – his work on medieval of histories of mechanics heat compared with of Mach amply demonstrate this. He surely aware of these subtleties in the historical record. Unfortunately, he largely ignored It would be all too easy to convict Duhem of partiality, to claim his were primarily the desire to combat certain kinds of Godless cosmologies associated with metaphysical atomism and physical mechanism to defend a Michael Liston – Duhem: Images Science, Historical Continuity, and First Crisis in Physics 83 and more closely with teachings Mother Church. Perhaps was consciously or unconsciously influenced by such desiderata. But, when assessing his motivations we must also attend what he to print, here is frank about his religious predilections and emphatic that his connections between physics and metaphysics are based entirely his examination physics and its history. I take at his word and doubt that this omission dishonest motives. Nevertheless, one can only assume he thought these historical connections to be unimportant didn't fit the pattern progress and cumulativeness saw the he The general with historical extrapolations of the kind Duhem and our own contemporaries to make is that it is all too often too find suitable pattern to His attempts to extrapolate and the future of physics us of Historically and though he was, Duhem Why should we think we do better? The history oracle and its future, shaped as it will by our contingent and accidental approach to world, is unlikely to be predictable with any confidence. References Cartwright, N. How the Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chakravartty, A. 2007. Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: the Unobservables. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duhem, P. 1895. Théories la Chaleur. des Deux Mondes 869–901; 130, 379–415, Duhem, P. 1901. Recent Extensions Statics Dynamics. 1902 [2002].
 of the day. Duhem was nothing if Not a sensitIve hiStoRiaN – hIs maSsivE work on medievaL PhysIcs and the clear superiorIty of HiS HistORiEs of mEchanicS AnD HEat CoMpAreD wITh Those Of MAch amplY demonstraTe tHiS. He was surely AWaRe of these sUbtLeties in the hIstOrical ReCorD. unforTunAtely, He largELy ignoRed them. It WoULd be alL Too easy TO CoNvicT Duhem of partialitY, To CLaim that his vieWs were MoTIvATEd pRimArily by the DeSire tO Combat cERtAIN KinDS of Godless cosMologies assOCiaTed witH mEtaPHysicaL atomIsM And Physical mecHaniSm and to deFend a MIChael LiSTon – DuheM: ImageS of sciEnce, hIsToRicAl cOntINuIty, ANd tHe First CRiSiS in PhYsicS 83 COSMoloGy aNd phYsics More closely alIgnEd wiTH thE teacHings Of MoThEr ChuRch. PerHaps hE wAs consciously or UncoNsciously InfLuEncEd By sucH DesideRatA. BuT, when asSessing HIs mOtIVATiOns we must also attenD tO WHaT he literAlly coMMiTtED to print, AnD heRe he IS ThoroUghlY FrAnk about His metAPhYsIcal and ReLigiouS pRedIleCtionS And eMphatiC that his ConclUSions about the cONnections betwEEn PHYsICs anD meTaphysics arE basED entIrelY On His EXaminAtion Of PHySIcs and its history. I taKe Him at hIs worD and doubt that This omissiON HAd dishonEst mOTiVEs. Nevertheless, One caN only assumE He thoughT thesE historiCal connecTIOns to be uNimPorTanT beCAUsE they didn't fit THE patTeRn of proGreSs and cuMulAtiVenEss He Saw and the Image he eNdOrSeD. THe gEneraL Problem wItH hiStOriCal exTRapolaTions Of thE kInD duhEm and ouR OwN COnteMpOrArieS waNt To makE is tHAt iT is all tOo often toO eaSY to fInD a SuitablE pattern to proJeCt. His attemPtS to ExtrapOLAte strucTures and predict the futurE Of physiCs sHould Make Us wary of aLl sUch argUmeNTs. HistOricalLy senSiTivE ANd cauTIOuS thOuGh he was, DuhEM BluNdereD. WHy shOuld we tHink we can do better? THE hiStory of physicS is A DelPHIc OraCLe ANd iTs FUtuRE, Shaped as it will bE by our contInGEnT and accideNTal ApProach tO the worLd, is uNLikely tO be predicTable with AnY conFIDenCe. ReferencEs CartwrIght, N. 1983. How tHE Laws OF PHysicS LiE. OxforD: CLarEndon press. CHAkrAvartTy, A. 2007. A MeTaPhysicS for SCiEntific REalism: Knowing the UnobserVables. cambrIdgE: CambridgE UnIVerSity Press. duheM, P. 1895. Les ThéorIes De lA ChalEur. rEvue dEs DeUX MOndES 129: 869–901; 130, 379–415, 851–68. DuheM, P. 1901. On sOme Recent eXtEnsIONs Of Statics anD dYNamIcs. In duhEM, P. 1902 [2002].
 of the day. Duhem was not hing if no t a s ens iti ve  his tori an – his massi v e wo rk on medieval physics  andth e  cle a rsuper iorityo fh i s h is to rie so fmecha nic s and h eat compar edwi th those ofM ac h amply de mon strate this.  He  was s ur ely aware  of  thes e subt l etiesin the hi st o ricalr ecord.U n fo rtun ately, he largely ig n ored them. Itwouldbe al l too  ea sy to conv ic t Duh e m of pa r ti a l i ty, to claim that  his viewsw ere  motiv at edp rimari ly by  t h e d esire to co mbat  certainkindso f Godle s s cosmo logies  as soc iate d  w it h m et a phy s ic ala tom ism andph ys icalmech a n i s m an d t o de fenda Michael Lis ton  – D u hem : Ima ges o f Sc ie nce,Histor icalCo ntinuity, and t he F irst Cris isin  Ph ys ics 8 3  cosmo log y a nd phys ics mor e  cl os e l y  a ligned with the te ac h i ng s of Mot her Ch u rc h. Perhapshe  wa s co n s cious ly o r  u nconscio usly i n fl ue nced by  s uch de si der ata . But ,  whe n asse ssing hi s mot i vations we mus t  also attendt ow h at he l ite rally commi tted to p rint ,  a ndh ere h e isth o ro u ghly frank about hi smetaph ysica l and religio us predile c t i ons andemph a ti c  that his conc lusio ns about t h e connec tions  between  physicsa n d metaph ysi csare  ba s e dentirely on h i s  exa mi nationofphysics  an d i tshis to ry. I tak e him at  h is  w or d a nd do u bt thatth isom iss ion h a d dish onest  mot iv es .  Ne verthel e ss , oneca nonly  as su me he  tho u ght  thesehistorica l c o nnec ti on s to be  unimportantbe cause they  d idn 't fit t he patte rn of progress and cumu l ativene sshe sa w an d the ima gehe end ors e d. The  gener al pr ob lem w ith h i s to ric al  extrapola t i ons  of t he  kin d Duhem  and our own conte m por aries want to  ma ke i s th ati ti s a ll too o ften too easy t o find a s ui t ab le pattern topr oject.His att empts to extr apolate s tructures  a nd p r e dic t the futu re of ph ysics sho u ld ma k eus wa ryof all  s uch  argu ments. His toric ally s en sitive  andca utious t hough he was, Duhem blu ndered . Why  sh ould we t hin k  we  can do b ette r? The his tor y o f phy sic s  is a  Del p hi c o r acleandi ts future ,  s hap e d  a s it will b e b y o ur co nti n gent a nd a ccidental approac h  to the world,  isu n lik ely to b epredictable wi than y confiden ce . Reference s Cartwr ig h t, N.  1983.  How t he Laws o fP hysics  Lie . O xford: Cl are nd o n Press .Ch a kravar tty,  A . 2007 . A Me t aphy s i cs for Scientifi c Rea l i sm: K n owi ng th eUnobser v able s. Cambrid ge: Cambrid ge Uni vers ity P ress. D uh em, P.  18 95 . Les Théo r ies de la  Chal eur. Re vu e de s D eux Mo ndes 1 29: 8 69–9 01 ; 1 30, 379–4 1 5 ,8 51 –6 8 . D uhem , P.19 01.On Some R e cent Ext ens i ons ofSt ati c s  and D y na m i cs. In Duh em,  P. 1 9 0 2 [2002].
 of_the day._Duhem was nothing if_not a_sensitive_historian –_his_massive work on_medieval physics and_the clear superiority of_his histories of_mechanics_and heat compared with those of Mach amply demonstrate this. He was surely aware_of_these subtleties_in_the_historical record. Unfortunately, he largely_ignored them. It would be_all too_easy to convict Duhem of partiality, to claim_that_his views were_motivated primarily by the desire to combat certain kinds_of Godless cosmologies associated with metaphysical_atomism and physical_mechanism_and_to defend a Michael_Liston – Duhem: Images of Science,_Historical Continuity, and the First Crisis_in Physics 83 cosmology and physics more_closely aligned with the teachings of_Mother Church. Perhaps he was_consciously or_unconsciously influenced by such desiderata._But, when assessing_his motivations_we must also_attend to what he literally committed_to print, and_here he is thoroughly frank about_his_metaphysical and religious_predilections_and_emphatic that_his conclusions about_the_connections between_physics_and metaphysics are based entirely on_his_examination of physics and its history. I_take him at his_word_and doubt that this_omission had dishonest motives. Nevertheless,_one can only assume he thought_these historical_connections to_be unimportant because they didn't fit the pattern of progress and_cumulativeness he saw and the image_he endorsed. The general_problem with_historical_extrapolations of the_kind_Duhem and_our own contemporaries want to make is_that it_is all too often too easy_to find a suitable_pattern_to project. His attempts to extrapolate_structures and predict the future of_physics should make us wary_of_all_such arguments. Historically sensitive and_cautious though he was, Duhem blundered._Why should we_think we can do better? The history_of_physics is a Delphic oracle and_its_future, shaped as it will be_by_our_contingent and accidental approach to_the world, is unlikely to be_predictable with any confidence. References Cartwright, N. 1983. How_the Laws of_Physics Lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press._Chakravartty,_A._2007. A Metaphysics for Scientific Realism: Knowing the Unobservables. Cambridge:_Cambridge University_Press. Duhem, P._1895. Les Théories de la Chaleur. Revue des Deux Mondes_129: 869–901; 130, 379–415, 851–68. Duhem, P._1901. On Some Recent Extensions of Statics and Dynamics. In Duhem,_P. 1902 [2002].