, the fundamental distinctive features between 1 Amélia J. Oliveira is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the Faculdade João Paulo II. Address: Rua Bartolomeu de Gusmão, 531 – São Miguel, Marília – SP, Brazil. E-mail: amelijeso@gmail.com 2 For example, see Koyré (1973 [1966], 61) and Butterfield (1966 [1949], 27). 3 Published in 1969. Reprinted in his The essential tension (1977). Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the change in the historiography of science: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 128 an older historical tradition and the emerging new historiography of science. I expect to demonstrate how these features were already present in Duhem's work and how his influence can be felt in his followers' works. Finally, considering that the rise of a new historiography of science is undeniably due to Duhem's legacy, and that the central features of this new historiography mark his historical production, I will try to understand why his name was entirely neglected by Kuhn in his study of scientific revolutions. Duhem in Kuhn's Work In a work published to mark the 50th anniversary of the publication of SSR, Brad Wray (2015, 168) says that although an author may be influenced by more sources than he cites, "citations are a good place to start looking, in order to understand the influences" on him. Curiously, he affirms that "Kuhn does not cite some of the sources that clearly influenced him".4 If Kuhn does not mention Duhem in SSR, he does so in some of his other works. In his first article5 – "Robert Boyle and structural chemistry in the Seventeenth Century" – Kuhn cites Duhem in two notes. In the first, he (1952, 12) considers that Duhem, among other historians, explores a simplification "which treats all atomisms as mere particulate theories" and although he bears in mind that this simplification had illuminated portions of the history of Chemistry, it had also been misleading. In the second, Kuhn (1952, 13) says that "Duhem sees Boyle's application of the corpuscular theory of matter as the first source of 'the notion of a simple substance such as that provided by Lavoisier and his contemporaries'".6 It is interesting to note
, the fundamental distinctive features between 1 Amélia J. Oliveira is a Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the Faculdade João Paulo II. Address: Rua Bartolomeu de Gusmão, 531 – São Miguel, Marília – SP, Brazil. east - chain mail: amelijeso@gmail.com 2 For example, see Koyré (1973 [ 1966 ], 61) and Butterfield (1966 [ 1949 ], 27). 3 publish in 1969. reprint in his The essential tension (1977). Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the variety in the historiography of skill: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 128 an older historical custom and the emerging new historiography of science. I expect to attest how these features were already present in Duhem's work and how his influence can be felt in his followers' works. ultimately, considering that the rise of a new historiography of skill is undeniably due to Duhem's legacy, and that the cardinal features of this raw historiography mark his diachronic production, I will try to understand why his name was wholly neglected by Kuhn in his study of scientific revolutions. Duhem in Kuhn's Work In a work published to score the 50th anniversary of the publication of SSR, Brad Wray (2015, 168) says that although an author may be influenced by more sources than he cites, " citations are a good place to get down looking, in order to sympathize the influence " on him. Curiously, he affirm that " Kuhn does not cite some of the sources that clearly influenced him".4 If Kuhn does not mention Duhem in SSR, he does so in some of his early works. In his first article5 – " Robert Boyle and structural chemistry in the Seventeenth Century " – Kuhn cites Duhem in two notes. In the first, he (1952, 12) considers that Duhem, among other historians, explores a simplification " which treats all atomism as mere particulate theory " and although he bears in mind that this simplification had illuminated helping of the history of Chemistry, it had also been misleading. In the second, Kuhn (1952, 13) says that " Duhem see Boyle's lotion of the corpuscular theory of matter as the first source of' the notion of a bare substance such as that provided by Lavoisier and his contemporaries'".6 It is interesting to notice
, thf fundamental distinctivt features betweeu 1 Amélie J. Olibeira is a Professor in the Departmeit od Phioosophy at the Faculdaae João Pallo II. Aderesw: Rua Bartolomeu de Gusmão, 531 – São Niguel, Marília – SP, Brazil. E-mail: amelijevo@emcil.com 2 For example, see Koyré (1973 [1966], 61) and Futterfoepd (1966 [1949], 27). 3 Publishgd in 1969. Repdpnued in his The essential tension (1977). Amélia O. Oliveira – Duhrm's legacy for the change ln tje historiography lf science: Qn agqlysis based on Kuhn's writings 128 an older historical tradition and the zmerging neq yishmriography if scpence. I expecb to dekonstraye how these fcaturxs wwre already present ii Duhem's work and hor his infnuznce can be felt in hus follmwerv' wofjs. Winzlky, consifermng that ths rise of a new historiography os science is uhdeniaflr due to Duhem's legacy, and that the cenural reatures of this new hiwtoriography mark his historicwl production, I will try to understand why his nake waa enuivcly vwgpected by Kuhn in his study of scientific revjmuuioks. Duhem in Kuhn'f Work In a wlrl published to mark cge 50th anniversary of the puflicarion of SFR, Btad Wray (2015, 168) says that althouth an author nay be influenced yy more sourees thsn he cites, "citations are a yood pmace to stagt lookinf, in order to unddrsnand the influences" on him. Curyously, he affnrms thag "Kunn doef not cite some of the sources thah clecrly hnfluenced him".4 If Kuhn does not mention Dniem in SSR, he dmes so in sjme on his other worhs. In his firsj article5 – "Robdrt Boyle znd strnctural chemystry in the Vgventeenth Ceitury" – Kurn cutes Duhem kv two notes. In the firsn, ke (1952, 12) consuders that Duhem, akone other historiaur, explores a simlliwicwtpon "wrhch treats anl agomkxms ar mere kcrtlcuuate theories" and althouch hs bears in mind thst this sinplificaeion had illukinated portions ov the hirtory of Chemistry, it had also been mialeading. Ln bhe second, Kurn (1952, 13) says that "Dbhem sees Boyle's application of the corpnscular theory of mattgr as the first sourcg on 'the notion of a simple sgbstance such as thar provided by Lavpisier and his contemlorarias'".6 It is interesting to note
, the fundamental distinctive features between 1 Oliveira a Professor the Department of Paulo Address: Rua Bartolomeu Gusmão, 531 – Miguel, Marília – SP, Brazil. E-mail: 2 For example, see Koyré (1973 [1966], 61) and Butterfield (1966 [1949], 27). Published in 1969. Reprinted in his The essential tension (1977). Amélia J. Oliveira Duhem's for change the historiography of science: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 128 an older historical tradition and emerging new historiography of science. I expect to how these features were present in Duhem's work and his can be in followers' Finally, considering that rise of a new historiography of science is undeniably due to Duhem's legacy, and that the central of this mark his production, will to understand why was entirely neglected by Kuhn in scientific revolutions. Duhem in Kuhn's Work In a published to the 50th anniversary of the publication SSR, Brad Wray (2015, 168) says that although author may be influenced by more sources than he cites, "citations are a good place looking, in order to the influences" on Curiously, affirms "Kuhn not cite of the sources that clearly influenced him".4 If Kuhn does not Duhem in SSR, he does so in some of his In first article5 – Boyle and structural chemistry the Century" – Kuhn cites two In (1952, considers Duhem, among other historians, a simplification "which treats all as mere particulate theories" mind that this simplification had illuminated portions of history of Chemistry, it had also been In the second, Kuhn (1952, 13) says that "Duhem sees Boyle's application the corpuscular matter as the first source of 'the notion a simple substance such that provided by Lavoisier and his contemporaries'".6 It is to
, the fundamental distinctive Features beTween 1 améLia j. OLiveIra iS a Professor in tHE DepArtment of Philosophy at tHe FacUlDAde JOÃo paulo iI. AddreSS: RUA barToLoMeu De gUsMão, 531 – SãO MiGuel, MarÍlia – SP, BrazIl. E-MaIl: amelijeso@gMAiL.com 2 For exaMplE, see Koyré (1973 [1966], 61) and butTerfieLd (1966 [1949], 27). 3 pubLIshed In 1969. REprinTed in hIS The esSential teNsIOn (1977). AmélIA J. OliveIRA – DUhem'S legacy for the chanGE iN The historiograPhy of sCiENcE: aN anAlySis based on kuHn's wrITings 128 an OLdER HIstORical traditioN and the emerGIng New hisToRioGRaphy oF scieNcE. i exPect to demonStraTe how thesE featuREs were aLReady prEsent iN DuHem'S worK AnD hOw hIs INflUEnCe cAN be Felt in hiS fOlLowerS' worKS. fINallY, coNsidEring That the rise of A neW hisTOriOgrapHy of sCienCe Is undEniablY due tO DUhem's legacy, and tHat tHe central FeaTuRes Of This nEW histoRioGraPhy mark His histORicAl PRODuCtion, I will try to undErSTAnD why his nAme was ENtIrELy neglecTeD by kuhn IN His stUdy oF ScIentific RevoluTIoNs. duhem in kuHn's WorK IN a wOrk PubliSHed tO mark tHe 50th anniVersaRY of the publicatIOn of SSR, Brad WrAY (2015, 168) sAYS tHAt alThoUgh an author May bE InflUencED bY moRE sourCes thAn HE cITes, "citations are a gooD pLace to Start Looking, in ordeR to understAND The influEnceS" On HIm. Curiously, he aFfirmS that "Kuhn dOEs not citE some Of the souRces that cLEArly inflUenCed Him".4 if KUHN dOes not mention dUHem iN SsR, he doeS so In some oF hiS otHer WorKs. in his firsT article5 – "roBeRt boYle And stRUctural cHeMisTrY in The SeVEnteenTh CenTury" – kuHn CIteS Duhem iN TwO NOtes. in ThE firSt, hE (1952, 12) cOnsidErs tHAt DUhem, amoNg other hiStoRIans, ExPlOres a siMplification "wHiCh treats alL aTomIsms as MERe particUlate theories" and althougH He bears In mInd thAt thIs simplifIcaTion haD ilLUminatEd portIons oF tHe hISTory oF cHeMisTrY, it had also BEEn mIsleaDiNg. In The secoNd, Kuhn (1952, 13) says that "DuheM SeeS Boyle's applicAtiOn of THE cOrpUScULar ThEOry OF Matter as the firsT source of 'tHe NOtIon of a simpLE suBsTance suCh as thaT provIDed by LaVoisier anD his conteMpOrarIES'".6 It Is interestIng to notE
, the fundamental distinct ive featur es be twe en1Amél ia J . Oliveira isa  Pro fessor in the Departme nt of  P h ilos o ph y atthe Fac u ld a d e J oã oPau lo II . Add res s: RuaBartolomeu  de  G usmão, 531 – Sã o Miguel,Mar ília – SP, B raz il. E- ma il: ameli jes o@gma il.com 2 Forexample,se e  Koyré (1973 [ 1 9 66 ], 6 1) and Butterfiel d  ( 1 966 [1949], 27 ). 3 P ub l is h e d i n 1 969. Repri nt ed in his The es s e n tia l  tension (197 7). AméliaJ . O liveir a– D u hem'slegac yf orthe changein t he histor iograp h y of sc i ence: A n anal ysi s b ased on  K uhn 's wri t in gs1 28an older  h is toric al t r a d i tion  an d th e eme rging new his tor iogr a phy  of s cienc e. I  e xpect  to de monst ra te how these fe atur es were a lre ad y p re senti n Duhe m's  wo rk andhow his inf lu e n c ecan be felt in his  f o l lo wers' wo rks. F i na ll y , consid er ing  tha t the r iseo fa new hi storio g ra ph y of sc ie nce is  u nde nia bly d u e to  Duhem 's legac y, an d  that the cent r al features o f  t h i sn ew h ist oriographymark hishist o ri cal produ ction ,I  w i ll try to understan dwhy hi s nam e was entirel y neglecte d b y Kuhn i n hi s  s t udy of scienti fic r evolutions .  Duhem i n Kuh n's Work  In a wor k publishe d t o m ark  th e 50 th anniversar y of t he  public ati on of S SR,  Br adWra y(2015, 16 8) saysth at  a lt hou gh an author m ay  be  i nfl uence d  by mo re so urce sth a n h e cites ,  " c i tati on sarea g oo d pla ce t o  st art loo king, inord e r to  u nd erstand  the influenc es " on him.Cu rio usly,h e  affirms  that "Kuhn does not ci t e someofthe s ourc es that c lea rly in flu e nced h im".4If Ku hn  do e s  notm e nt ion  D uhem in SS R ,  he  does  s o in  some o f his other works. Inhis first art icl e5 – " Ro ber t  B o yle  a n d s t r uctural chemist ry in theSe v en teenth Cen t ury "– Kuhncites D uhemi n two n otes. Inthe first ,he ( 1 9 52,  12) consi ders tha t Duhem,a mongo th er hi sto rians,  e xpl oresa simp l ifi catio n "whi ch  treat s all  a tomismsas mere particulate the ories"  andalt hough hebea r s i n mind th at t his simpli fic ati on ha d i l lumin ated po rti o ns of  the history o f  C hem i s tr y, it had a l s o  be en mi sle a ding.In t he second, Kuhn ( 1 952, 13) saysthat " Duh ems eesBo yle's applicat ion  o f the corp us cular theor y of mat te r  as t he fir st sou rce of' t he notion  ofa s imple sub sta nc e  such a sth a t prov ided  b y Lavo isiera nd h i s  contemporaries' ".6 I t is in t ere sting  t o note
, the_fundamental distinctive_features between 1 Amélia_J. Oliveira_is_a Professor_in_the Department of_Philosophy at the_Faculdade João Paulo II._Address: Rua Bartolomeu_de_Gusmão, 531 – São Miguel, Marília – SP, Brazil. E-mail: amelijeso@gmail.com 2 For example,_see_Koyré (1973_[1966],_61)_and Butterfield (1966 [1949], 27)._3 Published in 1969. Reprinted_in his_The essential tension (1977). Amélia J. Oliveira –_Duhem's_legacy for the_change in the historiography of science: An analysis based_on Kuhn's writings 128 an older_historical tradition and_the_emerging_new historiography of science._I expect to demonstrate how these_features were already present in Duhem's_work and how his influence can be_felt in his followers' works. Finally,_considering that the rise of_a new_historiography of science is undeniably_due to Duhem's_legacy, and_that the central_features of this new historiography mark_his historical production,_I will try to understand why_his_name was entirely_neglected_by_Kuhn in_his study of_scientific_revolutions. Duhem_in_Kuhn's Work In a work published_to_mark the 50th anniversary of the publication_of SSR, Brad Wray_(2015,_168) says that although_an author may be influenced_by more sources than he cites,_"citations are_a good_place to start looking, in order to understand the influences" on_him. Curiously, he affirms that "Kuhn_does not cite some_of the_sources_that clearly influenced_him".4_If Kuhn_does not mention Duhem in SSR, he_does so_in some of his other works._In his first article5_–_"Robert Boyle and structural chemistry in_the Seventeenth Century" – Kuhn cites_Duhem in two notes. In_the_first,_he (1952, 12) considers that_Duhem, among other historians, explores a_simplification "which treats_all atomisms as mere particulate theories" and_although_he bears in mind that this_simplification_had illuminated portions of the history_of_Chemistry,_it had also been misleading._In the second, Kuhn (1952, 13)_says that "Duhem sees Boyle's application of the corpuscular_theory of matter_as the first source of_'the_notion_of a simple substance such as that provided by Lavoisier_and his_contemporaries'".6 It is_interesting to note