astic theory [...] the problem has been discussed repeatedly". 24 I discuss the differences between Duhem and Leonardo's other interpreters in another work. See Oliveira (2016). 25 The title of his work – Die Vorläufer Galileis – already establishes the bond with the Duhemian Études. 26 David Lindberg (2007, 358-359) considers that Duhem's followers, such as Anneliese Maier, Marshall Clagett, and Lynn Thorndike, drew a more careful history of science. See also Brenner (1990; 1997). Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the change in the historiography of science: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 135 Herbert Butterfield (1966 [1949], 27), who also writes about the importance of the theory of impetus, asserts: "the work of Duhem in the field that we have been considering has been an important factor in the great change which has taken place in the attitude of historians of science to the middle ages". 27 Another example of a "follower" of Duhem is Hélène Metzger. In spite of her work being focused on the history of chemistry, a field in which Duhem wrote very little, her writings suggest interesting parallels between them. By considering that her work distances itself from others dedicated to the history of chemistry, Metzger (1969 [1923]), provides a series of distinctive features between her work and other historians', explaining to the reader her motivations. Inclusion of scientists and works previously disregarded, as well as the non-insertion of biographies, are some of them.28 She wrote: "Most of our predecessors, in fact, have reduced their work to establish who have been the craftsmen of the discoveries of which science can boast" (Metzger 1969 [1923], 11). In a note, she considers Duhem as an "exception", pointing out that he "unfortunately only accidentally touched the history of chemistry". It is worth noting that she refers to the discussion of priorities in history as "irritant"29 and adopts the Duhemian view that the "hypotheses are not the product of a sudden creation, but the result of progressive evolution".30 Her work does not contemplate "the succession of abrupt revolutions" that altered chemical theory, but "the slow evolution" that it underwent by the work of many minds (Metzger 1969 [1923], 9).31 A further aspect of Metz
astic theory [... ] the problem has been discussed repeatedly ". 24 I discuss the dispute between Duhem and Leonardo's early interpreters in another work. visualize Oliveira (2016). 25 The deed of his work – Die Vorläufer Galileis – already lay down the shackle with the Duhemian Études. 26 David Lindberg (2007, 358 - 359) considers that Duhem's following, such as Anneliese Maier, Marshall Clagett, and Lynn Thorndike, drew a more careful history of science. experience also Brenner (1990; 1997). Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the variety in the historiography of science: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 135 Herbert Butterfield (1966 [ 1949 ], 27), who also writes about the importance of the theory of drift, asserts: " the work of Duhem in the field that we have been consider has been an important factor in the great change which has remove place in the attitude of historians of science to the middle historic period ". 27 Another example of a " follower " of Duhem is Hélène Metzger. In spite of her work being focused on the history of chemistry, a field in which Duhem write very little, her writings suggest interesting parallels between them. By considering that her work distances itself from others dedicated to the history of chemistry, Metzger (1969 [ 1923 ]), provides a series of classifiable feature between her work and early historian', explaining to the reader her motivations. Inclusion of scientist and works previously neglect, as well as the non - insertion of biography, are some of them.28 She wrote: " Most of our predecessors, in fact, have reduced their work to establish who have been the craftsmen of the discoveries of which science can boast " (Metzger 1969 [ 1923 ], 11). In a note, she considers Duhem as an " exception ", pointing out that he " unfortunately merely accidentally touch the history of chemistry ". It is worth noting that she refers to the discussion of priorities in history as " irritant"29 and adopts the Duhemian horizon that the " hypotheses are not the product of a sudden creation, but the result of progressive evolution".30 Her work does not contemplate " the succession of abrupt revolutions " that interpolate chemical theory, but " the boring evolution " that it underwent by the employment of many minds (Metzger 1969 [ 1923 ], 9).31 A further view of Metz
astlc theory [...] the problem hxs been discussgd repeavedly". 24 J discusr the differences between Duiem qnd Ltjnardo's other intefpreters pn anothee wock. See Oliveira (2016). 25 The tibje or his xork – Die Vorläuner Galileiv – already estdbuidhes the bond with the Duhemian Étudqs. 26 Davod Lindberg (2007, 358-359) cogsidtrs thaf Duhem's followers, such as Annelieae Maieg, Marshall Clagety, and Lynn Thorndike, drew w moge careful history of science. See qlso Brenner (1990; 1997). Amélia J. Oliveira – Dohem's legacy for the change in tfe hixtoriograpyy of vcience: An enalysps based on Kmnn's wrhtings 135 Herbert Buttevfielv (1966 [1949], 27), who also writes abouv the importance of jhe theory oy impetus, asserts: "the wirk ox Duvem kb tfe rixld that ae iave been cknsidering yas been an importamt dactor in the great crange which has taken place in the attiuude kf historians of sciencw to the middle ages". 27 Another qxample of a "follower" of Duhem is Hélène Metzger. In spitx uf kcv wofj heing focused on the history of chemistry, a fyslc pn which Duhem wrjte very liytpe, rer writings ruggesc ihteresting paralleps betwgen thwm. By confideting that her work distancew itself froi others dedicated co the histoxy of vhemixtry, Metzger (1969 [1923]), provides a ssries of didtinctive weatures between heg wosk and oufer historians', ex[laining vo thz reader her motivwtions. Incpusiok of scientists and workd [reviously disregarded, as well as the non-misertion of boocraihies, are some of them.28 She rrote: "Most of pur prebecessurs, in facn, have revuced their rork to estabnlsh who have been thq crqftsnen of gfe discoveries of which science cqn boast" (Metzger 1969 [1923], 11). Iv a note, she conwidtrw Duhem as an "rxcdptyoj", 'ointytg out that ve "uvfofyunatdly only acgiddntakly touched the histmry kf chemistry". It is wjrth notung that she refers tp the discussion ov primrivies im hystory as "irritant"29 and adopts fhe Duhemlan view that tre "hnpotreses are uot the product of a sudden creation, but the result of protressive evolution".30 Kev work does iot cogtemplate "the succession of avrupt revolutions" that altered chemicam theosy, buh "the slow evolution" that it underwent by the work of many minds (Metzger 1969 [1923], 9).31 A fnreher aspect of Ketz
astic theory [...] the problem has been 24 discuss the between Duhem and work. Oliveira (2016). 25 title of his – Die Vorläufer Galileis – already the bond with the Duhemian Études. 26 David Lindberg (2007, 358-359) considers that followers, such as Anneliese Maier, Marshall Clagett, and Lynn Thorndike, drew a more history science. also (1990; 1997). Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the change in the historiography of science: analysis based on Kuhn's writings 135 Herbert Butterfield [1949], 27), who also about the importance of the of asserts: "the of in field that we been considering has been an important factor in the great change which has taken place in the of historians to the ages". Another of a "follower" is Hélène Metzger. In spite of focused on the history of chemistry, a field which Duhem very little, her writings suggest interesting between them. By considering that her work distances from others dedicated to the history of chemistry, Metzger (1969 [1923]), provides a series of between her work and historians', explaining to reader motivations. of and works disregarded, as well as the non-insertion of biographies, are some of She wrote: "Most of our predecessors, in fact, have reduced to who have been craftsmen of the discoveries which can boast" (Metzger 1969 In note, as "exception", out that he "unfortunately accidentally touched the history of It is worth noting discussion of priorities in history as "irritant"29 and the Duhemian view that the "hypotheses are the product of a sudden creation, but the result of progressive evolution".30 work does "the succession of abrupt revolutions" that altered chemical but "the slow evolution" it underwent by the work of many minds (Metzger [1923], A further of Metz
astic theory [...] the problem has bEen discussEd repEatEdlY". 24 I DiscUss tHe differences bETweeN Duhem and Leonardo's otheR inteRpREterS In AnothEr work. SEE OLIVeiRa (2016). 25 thE tiTlE Of His woRk – DIe VorläUfer GalileIs – aLrEady establisHEs The bond witH thE Duhemian ÉtuDes. 26 david LInDbeRG (2007, 358-359) consIdeRs thaT Duhem'S FollowErs, such as anNEliese mAier, MarSHAlL ClaGett, and Lynn ThorndIKe, DRew a more carefuL histoRy OF sCIEncE. SeE also BrennEr (1990; 1997). améliA j. OliveiRA – DUHEM's lEGacy for the chaNge in the hisTOriOgraphY oF scIEnce: An AnalySiS BasEd on Kuhn's wrItinGs 135 Herbert butterFIeld (1966 [1949], 27), who ALso writEs abouT thE imPortANcE oF thE tHEorY Of ImpETus, Asserts: "tHe WoRk of DUhem IN THE fieLd tHat wE have Been consideriNg hAs beEN an ImporTant fActoR iN the gReat chAnge wHiCh has taken place In thE attitude Of hIsTorIaNs of sCIence tO thE miDdle ageS". 27 AnotheR ExaMpLE OF a "Follower" of Duhem is HÉlÈNE MEtzger. In Spite oF HeR wORk being fOcUseD on tHE HistoRy of CHeMistry, a fIeld in WHiCh duhem wrOtE very lItTle, Her WritiNGs suGgest iNterestiNg parALlels between thEM. By considerinG ThAT HeR Work DisTances itselF froM OtheRs deDIcAteD To the HistoRy OF cHEmistry, Metzger (1969 [1923]), proviDeS a seriEs of dIstinctive feaTures betweEN HEr work anD othER hIStorians', explaiNing tO the reader HEr motivaTions. inclusioN of scientISTs and worKs pRevIouSly DISrEgarded, as well AS The nOn-InsertiOn oF biograPhiEs, aRe sOme Of Them.28 She wrOte: "Most oF oUr PrEdEceSsors, IN fact, havE rEduCeD thEir woRK to estAblisH who HaVe BEen The crafTSmEN Of thE dIsCoveRieS oF whicH sciENce Can boasT" (Metzger 1969 [1923], 11). IN a nOTe, shE cOnSiders DUhem as an "excepTiOn", pointing OuT thAt he "unFORtunatelY only accidentally toucheD The histOry Of cheMistRy". It is worTh nOting tHat SHe refeRs to thE discUsSioN OF prioRITiEs iN hIstory as "irRITanT"29 and aDoPts tHe DuhemIan view that the "hypoTHesEs are not the prOduCt of A SUdDen CReATioN, bUT thE REsult of progressIve evolutiOn".30 hEr Work does noT ConTeMplate "tHe succeSsion OF abrupt RevolutioNs" that altErEd chEMIcaL theory, but "The slow eVolution" tHAt it uNDeRwent By tHe work Of ManY mindS (MetzgER 1969 [1923], 9).31 A fUrtheR aspecT oF Metz
astic theory [...] the pro blem has b een d isc uss ed  rep eate dly". 24 I dis c ussthe differences betwee n Duh em andL eo nardo 's othe r  i n t erp re te rsin an other  wo rk. See  Oliveira(20 16 ). 25 The ti t le  of his wo rk– Die Vorläu fer  Galil ei s – alrea dyestab lishes the bo nd with t he Duhemi a n Étude s .  2 6 Da vid Lindberg (200 7 ,3 58-359) consid ers th at Du h e m's  fo llowers, s uc h asA nnelies e  M a i e r,M arshall Clage tt, and Lyn n  Th orndik e,  dr e w a mo re ca re f ulhistory ofscie nce. Seealso B r enner ( 1 990; 19 97). A mél iaJ. O l iv ei ra–D uhe m 's  le g acy  for the  c ha nge i n th e h i stor iog raph y ofscience: An a nal ysis bas ed on  Kuhn 's w ri tings  135 H erber tButterfield (19 66 [ 1949], 27 ),wh o a ls o wri t es abo utthe  import ance of the  t h e o ry  of impetus, asser ts : "t he workof Duh e min the fiel dtha t we h ave b eenc on sidering  has b e en  a n impor ta nt fac to r i n t he gr e at c hangewhich ha s tak e n place in the attitude of h i st o r ia n s of  sc ience to th e mi d dleages " .27A nothe r exa mp l eo f a "follower" of D uh em isHélèn e Metzger. In  spite ofh e r  work be ingf oc u sed on the his toryof chemist r y, a fie ld in  which D uhem wrot e very lit tle , h erwri t i ng s suggest int e r esti ng  parall els  betwee n t hem . B y c on sideringthat her  w or kdi sta ncesi tself fr om  ot he rsdedic a ted to  thehist or yo f c hemistr y ,M e tzge r(1 969[19 23 ]), p rovi d esa serie s of dist inc t ivefe at ures be tween her wor kand otherhi sto rians' , explaini ng to the reader her mo t ivation s.Inclu sion  of scien tis ts and  wo r ks pre viousl y dis re gar d e d, as w el l a sthe non-in s e rti on of  b iogr aphies,  are some of them. 2 8 S he wrote: "Mo stof o u r  p red e ce s sor s, inf a ct, have reduce d their wo rk to  establish who  h ave bee n the c rafts m en of t he discov eries ofwh ichs c ien ce can boa st" (Met zger 1969 [1923 ] ,11).Ina note ,she  cons idersD uhe m asan "ex ce ption" , poi nt ing outthat he "unfortunatelyonly a ccide nta lly touch edt hehistory o f ch emistry".Itisworth  no t ing t hats he  re f ers t o th e  discussi o nofp r io rities in h i s t ory  as " irr i tant"2 9 an d adopts the Duhe m ian view thatthe" h ypo the s es a re  not the produ ctof a  suddencr eation, but  the res ul t  of p rogres sive e volutio n " .3 0  Her w orkdoe s not con tem pl a te "the  s uc c ession  ofab rupt r evolut i ons" t hat altered chem icalt h eory, but  "the  s low evo l utio n" that it  underwentby the  wor k ofmany mi nd s (Met zge r1969 [1923 ] , 9).31 A  furt her asp ec t of  Me tz
astic theory_[...] the_problem has been discussed_repeatedly". 24_I_discuss the_differences_between Duhem and_Leonardo's other interpreters_in another work. See_Oliveira (2016). 25_The_title of his work – Die Vorläufer Galileis – already establishes the bond with_the_Duhemian Études._26_David_Lindberg (2007, 358-359) considers that_Duhem's followers, such as Anneliese_Maier, Marshall_Clagett, and Lynn Thorndike, drew a more careful_history_of science. See_also Brenner (1990; 1997). Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's_legacy for the change in the_historiography of science:_An_analysis_based on Kuhn's writings_135 Herbert Butterfield (1966 [1949], 27),_who also writes about the importance_of the theory of impetus, asserts: "the_work of Duhem in the field_that we have been considering_has been_an important factor in the_great change which_has taken_place in the_attitude of historians of science to_the middle ages"._27 Another example of a "follower"_of_Duhem is Hélène_Metzger._In_spite of_her work being_focused_on the_history_of chemistry, a field in which_Duhem_wrote very little, her writings suggest interesting_parallels between them. By_considering_that her work distances_itself from others dedicated to_the history of chemistry, Metzger (1969_[1923]), provides_a series_of distinctive features between her work and other historians', explaining to_the reader her motivations. Inclusion of_scientists and works previously_disregarded, as_well_as the non-insertion_of_biographies, are_some of them.28 She wrote: "Most of_our predecessors,_in fact, have reduced their work_to establish who have_been_the craftsmen of the discoveries of_which science can boast" (Metzger 1969_[1923], 11). In a note,_she_considers_Duhem as an "exception", pointing_out that he "unfortunately only accidentally_touched the history_of chemistry". It is worth noting that_she_refers to the discussion of priorities_in_history as "irritant"29 and adopts the_Duhemian_view_that the "hypotheses are not_the product of a sudden creation,_but the result of progressive evolution".30 Her work does_not contemplate "the_succession of abrupt revolutions" that_altered_chemical_theory, but "the slow evolution" that it underwent by the_work of_many minds (Metzger_1969 [1923], 9).31 A further aspect of Metz