 current theories will be retained in future theories. 12 His mixed approach was, of course, roundly criticized on all sides. Kelvin could not understand the Treatise as providing a physical theory because he felt Maxwell had too much focused on the mathematics and had lost sight of the mechanisms altogether. Poincaré and Duhem complained that Maxwell had too much and unnecessarily focused on mechanisms and had lost sight of a rigorous, coherent development of the abstract concepts and equations. 13 As Maiocchi and others have pointed out, Duhem completely ignored this 2nd crisis to which relativity and quantum mechanics responded, believing instead that a physics of principles, as realized in his generalized thermomechanics, was displaying (and would continue to display) steady progress toward a natural classification (Maiocchi 1990). Michael Liston – Duhem: Images of Science, Historical Continuity, and the First Crisis in Physics 81 Duhem, as we have seen, rejected all physical theorizing guided by R that appealed to underlying causal mechanisms and instead placed all his confidence in analytic physics guided by its associated NCaim. It is hard to emphasize how different the analytic and synthetic styles of theorizing are. The synthetic style deals with relatively concrete "visualizable" bodies, subject to actual displacements that result from experimental manipulation and the application of physical forces, and moving in paths in spacetime. The generalized analytic style deals with highly abstract properties of abstract systems classified under an abstract principle, PVV, subject to virtual displacements that result from conceptual manipulation, and "moving" in paths that are a continuous sequence of static states (each of which is allowed enough "time" to relax to equilibrium from a virtual manipulation). Natural classifications exploit formal, mathematical rather than sensible, intuitive analogies and end up classifying phenomena in ways that are unexpected from the classificatory perspective of everyday common sense. Duhem thinks of the tree structure that results from these analytic techniques as a natural classification of the phenomena into types of systems. Such a classification would be unified (since organized under one general principle, the root equation) and completely general (since new branches could be added in a well-motivated manner as new systems were discovered). Aftermath With hindsight we can see that each side – the proponents of mechanisms and the proponents of principles – turned out to be partly right and partly wrong about the physics. On the one hand, a physics of principles was partly vindicated by later developments. Einstein held that proper understanding requires synthetic theories but progress is often hindered by premature synthetic theories (Howard 2004
current theories will be retained in future theories. 12 His mixed overture was, of path, roundly criticized on all sides. Kelvin could not sympathize the Treatise as providing a physical theory because he feel Maxwell had too a lot focused on the mathematics and had suffer sight of the mechanism altogether. Poincaré and Duhem complained that Maxwell take too much and unnecessarily focused on mechanisms and had lost sight of a rigorous, coherent development of the abstract concept and equations. 13 As Maiocchi and others have pointed out, Duhem completely dismiss this 2nd crisis to which relativity and quantum mechanics react, believing alternatively that a physics of principles, as realized in his generalized thermomechanics, was displaying (and would continue to expose) steady progress toward a natural classification (Maiocchi 1990). Michael Liston – Duhem: Images of Science, Historical Continuity, and the First Crisis in Physics 81 Duhem, as we have seen, rule out all physical theorizing guided by R that appealed to underlying causal mechanisms and instead placed all his confidence in analytic physics guided by its associated NCaim. It is difficult to emphasize how different the analytic and celluloid style of theorizing are. The synthetic style deal with relatively concrete " visualizable " bodies, subject to actual displacements that result from experimental handling and the application of physical forces, and moving in paths in spacetime. The generalized analytic style deals with highly abstract properties of abstract systems classified under an abstract principle, PVV, subject to virtual displacement that result from conceptual handling, and " move " in paths that are a continuous sequence of static states (each of which is admit enough " time " to relax to chemical equilibrium from a virtual manipulation). Natural classifications exploit courtly, mathematical quite than sensible, intuitive analogies and end up classify phenomena in way that are unexpected from the classificatory perspective of casual common sense. Duhem think of the tree structure that results from these analytic proficiency as a natural categorization of the phenomena into types of systems. Such a categorization would be unified (since organized under one general principle, the etymon equality) and completely general (since fresh branches could be added in a well - motivated manner as new systems were discovered). Aftermath With hindsight we can see that each english – the proponents of mechanisms and the proponents of principles – turned out to be partly correct and partially wrong about the physics. On the one hand, a physics of principles was partly vindicated by later development. Einstein held that proper understanding requires celluloid theories but progress is often hindered by premature celluloid theories (Howard 2004
 cugrent theories will be rttained in future theorixs. 12 His mixed aoproach was, of course, roundlb cruticievd on all sides. Kelviv could nlt underwtanv the Treatise as providlug a lmysiccl theory becausg he felt Mafwell had too kuzh focused on the mathematics and had lost sogjt of the mechwniskf alfogether. Poincaré and Duhem complaihed thau Maxwell had too kuch and unnecessarily focksed on mechanisms and had lost sught if a rigorour, coherent development of the abstract concepts and eduatipns. 13 As Mauoxchl and others have pointed out, Duhem cmmpleteky ignored thix 2nv crusis to which relativmty and quantum mechwnics res[ouded, believing insteae rhat d phfsicr of prjnripmes, as reelized in hjs generalized thermomechanics, www displaying (znd wotlq continue to display) steady progress tmwadd a natural classificarion (Maiocchi 1990). Michaep Liston – Duhem: Images of Science, Historical Continuity, ang the Wirwt Zeidis in Physics 81 Duhem, as we have seen, rejecteq akl physical theovizing guided by R tjay appealed to onderlynhg causal mechanisms and inftead placed ajl hos confidence in analytic pyysics guideb bt its associated NEaim. It is hcrd to emphssize how different the anamytic and sjnthetic agyles of theorizkng ase. The synthetic style deajs with rxlatirely conzretg "visuajizable" bofies, subject to actual dlsplaeemends that redult from experimental manipulavmon and the akplhcanion of pkysicak forces, and ioving in pathx in spccetimd. The genegalized aialytic stylq deals with vlghly abstrart propereies of qbstracg systems classofied undvr an qbstract principle, PVX, subject to vircbao displacements thxt wedukt xrom conceptgal oanklulatkon, and "movlng" in laths that are a condinukus sequence of ststlc states (each of which is allpwed enough "time" tl relex to xquilinriom from a virtual manipulation). Hatural cpasfifications qxpliit formal, mcthematical rather than sensible, intuitite analogies and end uk classifying phenomeua in ways thet are unexpectad from the classifixatory perspectivt of everyday common sehse. Duvem tjinks of the tree structure that results from these analytic techniques aw a navuwal classifjcatoon ox che phenoiena mnto types of sysnems. Such a classification would be unifheb (since organized under one grndral principlg, the root equation) and cojpletely general (since new branches coukd be added in a well-motlvated mabner zs new sysvems were discovered). Afterkath Qith hibdsinht we can see thst each sidf – tie 'roponents of mechanisms and the proponwnhs of principles – turned oub uo be pzrtly tight and partly sronf abouj the physics. Pn the one hanc, a physics of princpplqs was partly cpndicated by kater dvvelopments. Emnstein held that proper understanding requires synthetic theorpes but prkgress is often hindergd by premature synthetig thejries (Hodard 2004
current theories will be retained in future His approach was, course, roundly criticized not the Treatise as a physical theory he felt Maxwell had too much on the mathematics and had lost sight of the mechanisms altogether. Poincaré and complained that Maxwell had too much and unnecessarily focused on mechanisms and had sight a coherent of the abstract concepts and equations. 13 As Maiocchi and others have pointed out, Duhem completely this 2nd crisis to which relativity and quantum responded, believing instead that physics of principles, as realized his thermomechanics, was (and continue display) steady progress a natural classification (Maiocchi 1990). Michael Liston – Duhem: Images of Science, Historical Continuity, and the First in Physics as we seen, all theorizing guided by appealed to underlying causal mechanisms and his confidence in analytic physics guided by its NCaim. It hard to emphasize how different the and synthetic styles of theorizing are. The synthetic deals with relatively concrete "visualizable" bodies, subject to actual displacements that result from experimental manipulation application of physical forces, moving in paths spacetime. generalized style with highly properties of abstract systems classified under an abstract principle, PVV, subject virtual displacements that result from conceptual manipulation, and "moving" in are continuous sequence of states (each of which allowed "time" to relax to a manipulation). formal, rather sensible, intuitive analogies and up classifying phenomena in ways are unexpected from the sense. Duhem thinks of the tree structure that from these analytic techniques as a natural of the phenomena into types of systems. Such a classification would be (since organized general principle, the root equation) and completely general new branches could be in a well-motivated manner as new systems were discovered). With we can that each side the proponents of and the proponents – turned to partly wrong about the physics. On the hand, physics of principles was partly by Einstein held that proper understanding requires synthetic theories but progress is often hindered by premature (Howard 2004
 current theories will be retaIned in futuRe theOriEs. 12 HIs MixeD appRoach was, of courSE, rouNdly criticized on all sidEs. KelViN CoulD NoT undeRstand tHE TREAtiSe As ProViDInG a phySicAl theorY because he FelT MAxwell had too MUcH focused on The Mathematics aNd hAd lost SiGht OF the mEchAnismS altogETher. PoIncaré and duHEm compLAined thAT maXwelL had too much and unnECeSSarily focused oN mechaNiSMs AND haD loSt sight of a RiGorouS, CoherenT DeVELOpmENt of the abstraCt concepts aND eqUationS. 13 AS MaIOcchi aNd othErS HavE pointed out, duheM completeLy ignoREd this 2nD Crisis tO which RelAtiVity ANd QuAntUm MEchANiCs rESpoNded, beliEvInG instEad tHAT A PhysIcs Of prIncipLes, as realized In hIs geNEraLized ThermOmecHaNics, wAs dispLayinG (aNd would continue To diSplay) steaDy pRoGreSs TowarD A naturAl cLasSificatIon (MaioCChi 1990). miCHAEl liston – Duhem: Images oF SCIEnCe, HistorIcal CoNTiNuITy, and the fiRst crisIS In PhySics 81 dUhEm, as we haVe seen, REjEcTed all pHySical tHeOriZinG guidED by R That apPealed to UnderLYing causal mechANisms and insteAD pLACeD All hIs cOnfidence in AnalYTic pHysiCS gUidED by itS assoCiATeD nCaim. It is hard to emphAsIze how DiffeRent the analytIc and synthETIC styles oF theORiZIng are. The synthEtic sTyle deals wITh relatiVely cOncrete "vIsualizabLE" Bodies, suBjeCt tO acTuaL DIsPlacements thaT REsulT fRom expeRimEntal maNipUlaTioN anD tHe applicaTion of phYsIcAl FoRceS, and mOVing in paThS in SpAceTime. THE generAlizeD anaLyTiC StyLe deals WItH HIghlY aBsTracT prOpErtieS of aBStrAct systEms classiFieD UndeR aN aBstract Principle, PVV, sUbJect to virtUaL diSplaceMENts that rEsult from conceptual maniPUlation, And "MovinG" in pAths that aRe a ContinUouS SequenCe of stAtic sTaTes (EACh of wHICh Is aLlOwed enough "TIMe" tO relaX tO equIlibriuM from a virtual manipULatIon). Natural claSsiFicaTIOnS exPLoIT foRmAL, maTHEmatical rather tHan sensiblE, iNTuItive analoGIes AnD end up cLassifyIng phENomena iN ways that Are unexpeCtEd frOM The ClassificaTory persPective of EVerydAY cOmmon SenSe. DuheM tHinKs of tHe tree STruCture That reSuLts froM thesE aNalytic tEchniques as a natural clasSificaTion oF thE phenomenA inTO tyPes of systEms. SUch a classiFicAtiOn wouLd bE UnifiEd (siNCe OrgANized UndeR One generaL PrIncIPLe, The root equaTION) anD compLetELy geneRal (sInce new branches coULd be added in a weLl-moTIVatEd mANner As New systems were DisCoVERed). AfterMaTh With hindsIght we caN sEE that Each siDe – the pRoponenTS Of MEchaniSms aNd tHe proponeNts Of PRinciplEs – TuRNed out To be PaRtly riGht and PArtlY WRong about the physIcs. On THE one hANd, a PhysiCs Of princIPles Was partly vIndicated by Later dEvelOpmenTs. EinstEiN held tHat PrOper undersTAnding reqUires SynthetIc TheoRieS but prOgreSS Is oftEn hiNdEreD by prematURE sYNtHeTIc tHeorIes (HoWaRd 2004
 current theories will beretained i n fut ure  th eo ries . 12  His mixed app r oach  was, of course, round ly cr it i cize d  o n all  sides. Ke l v inco ul d n ot un derst and  the Tr eatise aspro vi ding a physi c al  theory be cau se he felt M axw ell ha dtoo muchfoc usedon the mathem atics and  h a d lost sight o f th e me chanisms altogeth e r. Poincaré and D uhem c om p la i n edtha t Maxwellha d too much an d  u n n e ces s arily focused  on mechani s msand ha dlos t  sight  of a  r i gor ous, cohere nt d evelopmen t of t h e abstr a ct conc epts a ndequ atio n s.  1 3 A sM aio c ch i a n d o thers ha ve  p ointe d ou t , D uhem  co mple telyignored this2nd  cri s isto wh ich r elat iv ity a nd qua ntumme chanics respond ed,believing  in st ead  t hat a physic s o f p rincipl es, asr eal iz e d in  his generalized t he r m om echanics , wasd is pl a ying (an dwou ld c o n tinue  tod is play) st eady p r og re ss towa rd  a nat ur alcla ssifi c atio n (Mai occhi 19 90).M ichael Liston–  Duhem: Image s  o f Sc i ence , H istorical C onti n uity , an d  t heF irstCrisi si nP hysics 81 Duhem, as  w e have  seen , rejected al l physical t h eorizing  gui d ed by R that appe aledto underly i ng causa l mec hanismsand inste a d  placedall  hi s c onf i d en ce in analyti c phys ic s guide d b y its a sso cia ted  NC ai m. It ishard toem ph as iz e h ow di f ferent t he  an al yti c and synthe tic s tyle sof the orizing ar e .  The  s yn thet icst yle d eals wit h relat ively con cre t e "v is ua lizable " bodies, sub je ct to actu al  di splace m e nts that  result from experiment a l manip ula tionandthe appli cat ion of  ph y sicalforces , and  m ovi n g  in p a t hs  in  s pacetime.T h e g enera li zedanalyti c style deals with hig hly abstractpro pert i e sofa bs t rac ts yst e m s classified un der an abs tr a ct  principle ,  PV V,  subjec t to vi rtual displac ements th at result  f romc o nce ptual mani pulation , and "mo v ing"i npaths  th at are  a  co ntinu ous se q uen ce of  stati cstates  (eac hof which  is allowed enough "tim e" torelax  to  equilibr ium fro m a virtu al m anipulatio n).  Na tural  cl a ssifi cati o ns  ex p loitform a l, mathem a ti cal r at her than se n s i ble , int uit i ve ana logi es and end up cla s sifying phenom enai n  wa yst hatar e unexpected f rom  t h e  classif ic atory persp ective o fe veryd ay com mon se nse. Du h e mt hinksof t hetree stru ctu re that re su lt s  fromthes eanalyt ic tec h niqu e s  as a natural cl assif i c ation ofthe p he nomenai ntotypes of s ystems. Suc h a cl assi ficat ion wou ld  be un ifi ed  (since or g anized un der o ne gene ra l pr inc iple,ther o ot eq uati on ) a nd comple t e ly ge ne r al(sin ce ne wbran ches coul d  be adde d i n  a well -m oti v a ted ma n ne r as new sys tem s wer e discovered ) . Af t er m ath W ith hi ndsigh t we ca n  se ethat ea chs i de – theproponent s  of  m echa nisms an dthepr opo ne nts of principl es – tur ned outt o  be pa rtl y  rig h t andpa rtly wrong a boutth e  physic s .  On  the on e  ha nd,  aphys ics  ofp rinciples was partly vin dica ted b y  la ter d evelo pm ents. Ei n stei n held t h at proper und erstanding requ i res synt het i cth eories bu t p r ogres s is  of tenhin dere d by p r emat u re  syn thetic  the or ie s (Howard  2 004
 current_theories will_be retained in future_theories. 12_His_mixed approach_was,_of course, roundly_criticized on all_sides. Kelvin could not_understand the Treatise_as_providing a physical theory because he felt Maxwell had too much focused on the_mathematics_and had_lost_sight_of the mechanisms altogether. Poincaré_and Duhem complained that Maxwell_had too_much and unnecessarily focused on mechanisms and had_lost_sight of a_rigorous, coherent development of the abstract concepts and equations._13 As Maiocchi and others have_pointed out, Duhem_completely_ignored_this 2nd crisis to_which relativity and quantum mechanics responded,_believing instead that a physics of_principles, as realized in his generalized thermomechanics,_was displaying (and would continue to_display) steady progress toward a_natural classification_(Maiocchi 1990). Michael Liston –_Duhem: Images of_Science, Historical_Continuity, and the_First Crisis in Physics 81 Duhem,_as we have_seen, rejected all physical theorizing guided_by_R that appealed_to_underlying_causal mechanisms_and instead placed_all_his confidence_in_analytic physics guided by its associated_NCaim._It is hard to emphasize how different_the analytic and synthetic_styles_of theorizing are. The_synthetic style deals with relatively_concrete "visualizable" bodies, subject to actual_displacements that_result from_experimental manipulation and the application of physical forces, and moving in_paths in spacetime. The generalized analytic_style deals with highly_abstract properties_of_abstract systems classified_under_an abstract_principle, PVV, subject to virtual displacements that_result from_conceptual manipulation, and "moving" in paths_that are a continuous_sequence_of static states (each of which_is allowed enough "time" to relax_to equilibrium from a virtual_manipulation)._Natural_classifications exploit formal, mathematical rather_than sensible, intuitive analogies and end_up classifying phenomena_in ways that are unexpected from the_classificatory_perspective of everyday common sense. Duhem_thinks_of the tree structure that results_from_these_analytic techniques as a natural_classification of the phenomena into types_of systems. Such a classification would be unified (since_organized under one_general principle, the root equation)_and_completely_general (since new branches could be added in a well-motivated_manner as_new systems were_discovered). Aftermath With hindsight we can see that each side_– the proponents of mechanisms and the_proponents of principles – turned out to be partly right and_partly wrong about the physics. On the one_hand, a physics of principles was partly_vindicated by later developments._Einstein_held that proper understanding requires synthetic theories_but_progress_is_often hindered by_premature synthetic theories_(Howard 2004