, this could be a good reason. But, when analyzing the context, I do not think this is a satisfactory reason, because of the opposition between continuity and discontinuity views, and that the notions of revolution and evolution have no place in the SSR, not even being mentioned by Kuhn in the terms proposed by some of his interpreters. Also, the transition from older to new historiography involves many nuances, and the causes by which historians would represent more or less the new or the old historical tradition depend on what would be considered relevant to the discussion. I have tried to identify some features of new historiography according to Kuhn's writings and, based on them, show that Duhem was a real contributor to historiographic change. But, the question that can be asked is: when did the change to which Kuhn refers in SSR begin? Kuhn's review of Koyré's work allows us to temporarily locate what he called the "historiographical revolution": a movement that began with Koyré himself. Kuhn (1970a, 67) writes: "More than any other single scholar, Koyré was responsible for the first stage of the historiographical revolution". But, as we know, a revolution is not the work of a single man. Kuhn indentified in SSR a group of historians. It was a group of younger scholars that was presenting a "philosophical and analytical approach to the history of science" (Crombie 1959, 164). Mary Hesse's review of SSR corroborates Kuhn's identification with a group: "My own impression is that Kuhn's thesis is amply illustrated by recent historiography of science and will find easier accessibility among historians than among philosophers" (Hesse 1963, 286). In fact, when we observe the works Kuhn cites in SSR, we can see that most of them were published in the 50's. His more cited masters had works published since 1930. We may also recall that in 1957, Kuhn was among more than seventy participating historians of the University of Wisconsin Congress, critically discussing problems in the history of science. Among them, there were some of those cited in SSR, such as Mashall Clagett, Rupert Hall, Giorgio de Santillana, A. C. Crombie, Derek J. S. Price, Henry Guerlac, Charles C. Gillispie and Marie Boas.39 In different degrees, among other
, this could be a good reason. But, when analyzing the context, I do not think this is a satisfactory rationality, because of the enemy between continuity and discontinuity views, and that the notions of revolution and development have no place in the SSR, not even being mentioned by Kuhn in the condition proposed by some of his interpreters. besides, the passage from older to modern historiography involves many nuances, and the campaign by which historians would represent more or less the new or the old historical tradition count on what would be considered relevant to the discussion. I have tried to identify some feature of new historiography according to Kuhn's writing and, based on them, prove that Duhem was a real contributor to historiographic change. But, the question that can be asked is: when did the variety to which Kuhn refers in SSR begin? Kuhn's review of Koyré's work allows us to temporarily locate what he call the " historiographical revolution ": a movement that began with Koyré himself. Kuhn (1970a, 67) writes: " More than any other single scholar, Koyré was responsible for the first stage of the historiographical rotation ". But, as we acknowledge, a revolution is not the oeuvre of a individual man. Kuhn indentified in SSR a group of historians. It was a group of younger scholar that was presenting a " philosophical and analytical approach to the history of skill " (Crombie 1959, 164). Mary Hesse's review of SSR corroborates Kuhn's identification with a group: " My own impression is that Kuhn's thesis is amply illustrated by recent historiography of science and will find easier accessibility among historians than among philosopher " (Hesse 1963, 286). In fact, when we observe the work Kuhn summon in SSR, we can see that most of them were published in the 50's. His more cited masters have works published since 1930. We may also echo that in 1957, Kuhn was among more than seventy participating historians of the University of Wisconsin Congress, critically discussing problems in the history of skill. Among them, there were some of those cited in SSR, such as Mashall Clagett, Rupert Hall, Giorgio de Santillana, A. C. Crombie, Derek J. S. Price, Henry Guerlac, Charles C. Gillispie and Marie Boas.39 In different degrees, among other
, thls could be a good reasok. But, when analyeibg the contest, I do vot think this is a satisfacvory reasin, because of the opporition benween conrinumty and discontiihity viccs, ans thac vhe notions of tevolution atd evolution hdvd uo place in the SSR, not even being mqntionec hy Kuhn in the terkf prkiowed by some of his interpreteds. Also, the transitipn from older to new histogioggaphy involves manj nuances, abd trw causes by dhich historians would represent more or less the new or tke old histirucap tradition vepend on what would be cotsiderec relevant to bhe dmscuwsion. I have tried to identify some feajures of naw historiography axcirdinc to Kuhv'w wfitjnjs znd, baded on them, sgow that Duyem was a real conttiflyor to histodiogra[hyc change. But, the question that can be dsksd is: when did the chante to which Kuhn refets in SSR fegin? Kuhn's review of Koyré's work allows us to tem[orarmlh licwgw ahat he called the "historiographical revolutijh": s kovement that negan with Koyré hiksflg. Kuhn (1970a, 67) writgs: "More thzn any other singlf scholwr, Kotré was refponxible for the first stage od the historpogrqphical revolution". But, as we ynow, a refolution is not the wory of a single mwn. Kuhn ihaentified in SSR a nrogp of historians. It was a droup of boungzr scholxrs jhat waf presentijg a "ivilosophical and ajalytncal dpproach tl the history of science" (Crombix 1959, 164). Mary Hessg's sevpew of SSX corrpborates Kuhn'f identificatipn with a gruup: "My own impresvion is thae Kuhn's thesiv is amply ilnustrateq by recwnt hisguriography of xcience aub will fibd easier accessibllity zmong historianw tyan among philoxopferf" (Jexsq 1963, 286). In fact, wven de unservd the works Yuhn cites in SSR, we can see that most of them wcre publiwhed in ehe 50's. His morr cited masters haf worns 'ublisned since 1930. We may also recall thaf in 1957, Kuhj wws among morq thqn seventy pcrticipating historians of the Universitb of Wisconsin Congress, critically discussnnn problems ii the ristory ox science. Among them, there were some pf those cited in SSR, such ds Madhall Clagett, Rupert Hall, Giorgio de Santillana, A. C. Crombie, Derek J. S. Prixe, Hency Guerlac, Chzrlex C. Gpllnspne and Iarix Uoas.39 In different degrees, among other
, this could be a good reason. analyzing context, I not think this of opposition between continuity discontinuity views, and the notions of revolution and evolution no place in the SSR, not even being mentioned by Kuhn in the proposed by some of his interpreters. Also, the transition from older to new involves nuances, the by which historians would represent more or less the new or the old historical tradition depend what would be considered relevant to the discussion. have tried to identify features of new historiography according Kuhn's and, based them, that was a real to historiographic change. But, the question that can be asked is: when did the change to which refers in Kuhn's review Koyré's allows to temporarily locate called the "historiographical revolution": a movement Koyré himself. Kuhn (1970a, 67) writes: "More than other single Koyré was responsible for the first of the historiographical revolution". But, as we know, revolution is not the work of a single man. Kuhn indentified in SSR a group It was a group younger scholars that presenting "philosophical analytical to the of science" (Crombie 1959, 164). Mary Hesse's review of SSR corroborates identification with a group: "My own impression is that Kuhn's amply by recent historiography science and will find accessibility historians than among philosophers" 286). fact, the Kuhn in SSR, we can that most of them were in the 50's. His published since 1930. We may also recall that 1957, Kuhn was among more than seventy historians of the University of Wisconsin Congress, critically discussing problems in the of science. there were some of those cited in SSR, as Mashall Clagett, Rupert Giorgio de Santillana, A. C. Crombie, Derek J. S. Henry Charles C. and Marie Boas.39 different degrees, among
, this could be a good reason. But, When analyzIng thE coNteXt, i do nOt thInk this is a satiSFactOry reason, because of the oPposiTiON betWEeN contInuity aND dISConTiNuIty ViEWs, And thAt tHe notioNs of revoluTioN aNd evolution hAVe No place in tHe SsR, not even beiNg mEntionEd By KUHn in tHe tErms pRoposeD By some Of his inteRpREters. ALSo, the trANSiTion From older to new hisTOrIOgraphy involveS many nUaNCeS, ANd tHe cAuses by whiCh HistoRIans wouLD rEPREseNT more or less thE new or the olD HisToricaL tRadITion dePend oN wHAt wOuld be consiDereD relevant To the dIScussioN. i have trIed to iDenTifY somE FeAtUreS oF New HIsTorIOgrAphy accoRdInG to KuHn's wRITINgs aNd, bAsed On theM, show that DuheM waS a reAL coNtribUtor tO hisToRiogrAphic cHange. buT, the question thaT can Be asked is: WheN dId tHe ChangE To whicH KuHn rEfers in sSR begiN? kuhN's REVIeW of Koyré's work allowS uS TO tEmporariLy locaTE wHaT He called ThE "hiStorIOGraphIcal REvOlution": a MovemeNT tHaT began wItH Koyré HiMseLf. KUhn (1970a, 67) wRItes: "more thAn any othEr sinGLe scholar, Koyré WAs responsible FOr THE fIRst sTagE of the histoRiogRAphiCal rEVoLutIOn". But, As we kNoW, A rEVolution is not the worK oF a singLe man. kuhn indentifiEd in SSR a grOUP Of historIans. iT wAS a group of youngEr schOlars that wAS presentIng a "pHilosophIcal and anALYtical apProAch To tHe hISToRy of science" (CrOMBie 1959, 164). MArY Hesse's RevIew of SSr coRroBorAteS KUhn's identIficatioN wItH a GrOup: "my own IMpressioN iS thAt kuhN's theSIs is amPly ilLustRaTeD By rEcent hiSToRIOgraPhY oF sciEncE aNd wilL finD EasIer acceSsibility AmoNG hisToRiAns than Among philosopHeRs" (Hesse 1963, 286). In fAcT, whEn we obSERve the woRks Kuhn cites in SSR, we can sEE that moSt oF them Were Published In tHe 50's. His MorE Cited mAsters Had woRkS puBLIshed SINcE 1930. We MaY also recalL THat In 1957, KuhN wAs amOng more Than seventy particiPAtiNg historians oF thE UniVERsIty OF WIScoNsIN CoNGRess, critically dIscussing pRoBLeMs in the hisTOry Of Science. among thEm, theRE were soMe of those Cited in SSr, sUch aS mAshAll Clagett, rupert HaLl, Giorgio DE SantILlAna, A. C. croMbie, DeReK J. S. price, henry GUErlAc, ChaRles C. GIlLispie And MaRiE Boas.39 In dIfferent degrees, among othEr
, this could be a good rea son. But,whenana lyz in g th e co ntext, I do no t  thi nk this is a satisfact ory r ea s on,b ec auseof theo pp o s iti on  b etw ee n  c ontin uit y and d iscontinui tyvi ews, and tha t  t he notions  of  revolutionand  evolu ti onh ave n o p lacein the SSR, n ot even b ei n g ment i oned by K uh n in  the terms propos e db y some of hisinterp re t er s .  Al so,  the trans it ion f r om olde r  t o n ewh istoriography  involves m a nynuance s,  an d  the c auses  b y  wh ich histori answould rep resent more or less th e neworthe  old hi st ori ca l  tr a di tio n  de pend onwh at  woul d be c o n side red  rel evant  to the discu ssi on.I  ha ve tr ied t o id en tifysome f eatur es  of new histori ogra phy accor din gtoKu hn'sw riting s a nd,  basedon them ,  sh ow t h at  Duhem was a realco n t ri butor to  histo r io gr a phic cha ng e.But, t he qu esti o nthat can  be as k ed  i s: when  d id the  c han geto wh i ch K uhn re fers inSSR b e gin? Kuhn's re v iew of Koyré' s  w o r ka llow s u s to tempor aril y  loc atew ha t h e  call ed th e" hi s toriographical revo lu tion":  a mo vement that b egan withK o y ré himse lf.K uh n  (1970a, 67) w rites : "More th a n any ot her s ingle sc holar, Ko y r é was re spo nsi ble  fo r th e first stage o f th ehistori ogr aphical  re vol uti on" .But, as w e know,are vo lu tio n isn ot the w or k o fa s ingle man. K uhn i nden ti fi e d i n SSR a gr o u p of  h is tori ans .It wa s ag rou p of yo unger sch ola r s th at  w as pres enting a "phi lo sophical a nd  an alytic a l  approac h to the history of sci e nce" (C rom bie 1 959,  164). Ma ryHesse' s r e view o f SSRcorro bo rat e s  Kuhn ' s  i den ti fication w i t h a  grou p:  "My  own im pression is that K u hn' s thesis is a mpl y il l u st rat e db y r ec e nth i storiography of  science a nd wi ll find ea s ier  a ccessib ility a mongh istoria ns than a mong phil os ophe r s " ( Hesse 1963 , 286).In fact,w hen w e  o bserv e t he wor ks  Ku hn ci tes in SSR , wecan se ethat m ost o fthem wer e published in the 50's . Hismorecit ed master s h a d w orks publ ishe d since 19 30.  We  mayals o  reca ll t h at  in 1957,  Kuh n  was amon g  m ore t ha n seventy p a r t ici patin g h i storia ns o f the Universityo f Wisconsin Co ngre s s , c rit i call ydiscussing pro ble ms i n the hi st ory of scie nce. Amo ng them,  there  weresome of t ho s e cite d in  SS R, such a s M as h all Cla ge tt ,  Ruper t Ha ll , Gior gio de Sant i l lana, A. C. Crom bie,D e rek J .  S.  Pric e,  HenryG uerl ac, Charle s C. Gillis pie an d Ma rie B oas.39In  diffe ren tdegrees, a m ong other 
, this_could be_a good reason. But,_when analyzing_the_context, I_do_not think this_is a satisfactory_reason, because of the_opposition between continuity_and_discontinuity views, and that the notions of revolution and evolution have no place in_the_SSR, not_even_being_mentioned by Kuhn in the_terms proposed by some of_his interpreters._Also, the transition from older to new historiography_involves_many nuances, and_the causes by which historians would represent more or_less the new or the old_historical tradition depend_on_what_would be considered relevant_to the discussion. I have tried_to identify some features of new_historiography according to Kuhn's writings and, based_on them, show that Duhem was_a real contributor to historiographic_change. But,_the question that can be_asked is: when_did the_change to which_Kuhn refers in SSR begin? Kuhn's_review of Koyré's_work allows us to temporarily locate_what_he called the_"historiographical_revolution":_a movement_that began with_Koyré_himself. Kuhn_(1970a,_67) writes: "More than any other_single_scholar, Koyré was responsible for the first_stage of the historiographical_revolution"._But, as we know,_a revolution is not the_work of a single man. Kuhn_indentified in_SSR a_group of historians. It was a group of younger scholars that_was presenting a "philosophical and analytical_approach to the history_of science"_(Crombie_1959, 164). Mary_Hesse's_review of_SSR corroborates Kuhn's identification with a group:_"My own_impression is that Kuhn's thesis is_amply illustrated by recent_historiography_of science and will find easier_accessibility among historians than among philosophers"_(Hesse 1963, 286). In fact,_when_we_observe the works Kuhn cites_in SSR, we can see that_most of them_were published in the 50's. His more_cited_masters had works published since 1930._We_may also recall that in 1957,_Kuhn_was_among more than seventy participating_historians of the University of Wisconsin_Congress, critically discussing problems in the history of science._Among them, there_were some of those cited_in_SSR,_such as Mashall Clagett, Rupert Hall, Giorgio de Santillana, A._C. Crombie,_Derek J. S._Price, Henry Guerlac, Charles C. Gillispie and Marie Boas.39 In_different degrees, among other