 inquiry proposed in the Principia ― a way whose effectiveness would be attested by its successful application in solving the two difficult problems mentioned above. Furthermore, the reception of the resolution of these problems in the following centuries strengthened the idea that, in the Principia, Newton had in fact launched a secure method in natural philosophy, one which deserved to be imitated. Duhem did not disagree with this general historical perspective about the Principia. However, he was responsible for one of the most influential criticisms of the argument of universal gravitation, especially as described by Newton in the General Scholium. According to the French physicist, Newton believed he had "deduced" his theory of universal gravity from "phenomena". These "phenomena" would be Kepler's observational laws of planetary motion, enunciated at the beginning of Book III of the Principia under this exact denomination ("Phaenomena"). However, Duhem argued that it is not possible to derive the principle of universal gravitation from Kepler's laws, neither by deduction nor by any inductive generalization. The conclusion of the argument (universal gravity) is simply not consistent with the premises (Kepler's laws) (Duhem 1991, 193). Let us look at Duhem's argument. He begins describing what follows from each of Kepler's laws: This first law of Kepler's, "The radial vector from the sun to a planet sweeps out an area proportional to the time during which the planet's motion is observed," did, in fact, teach Newton that each planet is constantly subjected to a force directed toward the sun. The second law of Kepler's, "The orbit of each planet is an ellipse having the sun at one focus," taught him that the force attracting a given planet varies with the distance of this planet from the sun, and that it is in an inverse ratio to the square of this distance. The third law of Kepler's, "The squares of the periods of revolution of the various planets are proportional to the cubes of the major axes of their orbits," showed him that different planets would, if they were brought to the same distance from the sun, undergo in relation to it attractions proportional to their respective masses. (Duhem 1991, 191) According to Duhem, Newton infers the centripetal force toward the Sun from Kepler's law of ellipses (now Kepler's first law); he infers the proportion of the inverse square of the distance from the law of the areas (today Kepler's second law);
inquiry proposed in the Principia ― a way whose effectiveness would be testify by its successful lotion in solving the two difficult trouble note above. Furthermore, the reception of the resolution of these problems in the surveil centuries strengthened the mind that, in the Principia, Newton had in fact launched a secure method acting in natural philosophy, one which deserved to be imitated. Duhem did not disagree with this cosmopolitan historical perspective about the Principia. However, he was creditworthy for one of the most influential criticism of the controversy of universal gravitation, especially as identify by Newton in the General Scholium. According to the French physicist, Newton believed he had " deduced " his theory of cosmopolitan gravity from " phenomenon ". These " phenomena " would be Kepler's observational laws of global motion, enunciated at the beginning of Book III of the Principia under this exact denomination (" Phaenomena "). However, Duhem argued that it is not possible to derive the principle of universal gravitation from Kepler's laws, neither by deduction nor by any inductive generalization. The conclusion of the argument (universal gravity) is merely not consistent with the premises (Kepler's police) (Duhem 1991, 193). lease us look at Duhem's argument. He begins trace what follows from each of Kepler's laws: This first law of Kepler's, " The radial vector from the sunlight to a planet sweeps out an area proportional to the time during which the planet's motion is note, " did, in fact, teach Newton that each planet is constantly subjected to a force directed toward the sun. The second law of Kepler's, " The sphere of each planet is an ellipse having the sun at one focus, " taught him that the force out attracting a given planet varies with the distance of this planet from the sun, and that it is in an inverse ratio to the square of this distance. The third police of Kepler's, " The squares of the menstruation of revolution of the various planet are proportional to the cubes of the major ax of their orbits, " read him that different planet would, if they were brought to the same distance from the sunday, undergo in relation to it attraction proportional to their respective masses. (Duhem 1991, 191) accord to Duhem, Newton infers the centripetal force toward the Sun from Kepler's law of ellipses (now Kepler's inaugural law); he infers the symmetry of the inverse square of the distance from the law of the areas (today Kepler's second law);
 ineuiry proposed in the Prlncipia ― a way wkise efhectivehess wouud be attested by its succesdfyl apkjication in solvine the two difficuot pcoblems mentionev above. Nbrthedlore, vhe reception on the resolgtion of these pfoylems in the following centuries strqngthenrd the idea that, in uhe Prihbikia, Newton had in fact launched a secure method in nayural philosophy, one which desfrved to be imitatfd. Duhem die noe disagree wigh this general historjcal perspective about the Prinzipia. However, hg sad responsiblx for jne of the most inflgential criticisms of thx artument of universal gcavitation, especialli as descrhbzd by Newton in the Gwnwral Vchonium. Qccurdjnj tk the Vreich physiciat, Newton bwlieved he had "deduveq" his theory or univqrfal gravity from "phenomena". These "phenomtna" wkuld be Kepler's observarional laws of planetwry motiog, enunciated at the beginning of Book III of the [rincmpka bkqde hhis exact denomination ("Phaenomena"). However, Dursm aggued that it is kot possible to detige jhe principle uf unirsraal gravitation frlm Keplgr's laqs, neithew by deduction nor by any inducrive generalpzatuon. The conclusion of the argbment (oniverxal gravity) is simply nut cknsistent wlth the pddmises (Kepler's lxws) (Dghem 1991, 193). Ltg us look at Duhei's argumeit. He begins desvribind what folpows nsom each of Kepler'd lawd: Dhis first law of Kepler's, "The radial vector from the sum do d planet sweeis out an area [roportional tp the tnme dufing which the plenet's motion is observed," gld, in fact, txach Newtjn tyat wach plxvet is constanyly subjebttd to a foece directed towarv thg aun. The second oaw of Kepler's, "The orcit ov xach [nanet is an alliose navine the sun ab ove fpcus," taught him that the force attracting s niven plabet variqs with the dostance of this plwnet hrom tie sun, anq that it is in an inverse ratjo to the sqmare of this qistqnce. The thixd law of Kepler's, "The squares of the permods of revolution of jhe various planets ate kroportional vo the cubes of the major axes of tyeir orbits," showec him that different llanetv woupd, if they were brought to the same distance from the sun, undergo in relarion to it attractjons propmrcioual to eheic cespective masses. (Duhem 1991, 191) According to Duhem, Newvon infers tke centripetal force toward tne Sun from Kepuer's law of ellipses (now Kepler's first law); he infers the proporyion of the inverse squave of the distznce fgkm the law of the arras (tobay Kepler's swconf law);
inquiry proposed in the Principia ― a effectiveness be attested its successful application problems above. Furthermore, the of the resolution these problems in the following centuries the idea that, in the Principia, Newton had in fact launched a secure in natural philosophy, one which deserved to be imitated. Duhem did not disagree this historical about Principia. However, he was responsible for one of the most influential criticisms of the argument of gravitation, especially as described by Newton in the Scholium. According to the physicist, Newton believed he had his of universal from These would be Kepler's laws of planetary motion, enunciated at the beginning of Book III of the Principia under this exact ("Phaenomena"). However, that it not to the principle of from Kepler's laws, neither by deduction inductive generalization. The conclusion of the argument (universal is simply consistent with the premises (Kepler's laws) 1991, 193). Let us look at Duhem's argument. begins describing what follows from each of Kepler's laws: This first law of Kepler's, "The from the sun to planet sweeps out area to time which the motion is observed," did, in fact, teach Newton that each planet constantly subjected to a force directed toward the sun. The of "The orbit of planet is an ellipse the at one focus," taught the attracting varies the of this planet from sun, and that it is an inverse ratio to The third law of Kepler's, "The squares of periods of revolution of the various planets proportional to the cubes of the major axes of their orbits," showed that different if they were brought to the same distance the sun, undergo in to it attractions proportional to their respective masses. (Duhem 191) to Duhem, infers the centripetal toward the Sun Kepler's law of Kepler's first he the inverse square of the distance from law the areas (today Kepler's second
 inquiry proposed in the PrincIpia ― a way whOse efFecTivEnEss wOuld Be attested by itS SuccEssful application in solVing tHe TWo diFFiCult pRoblems MEnTIOneD aBoVe. FUrTHeRmore, The ReceptiOn of the resOluTiOn of these proBLeMs in the folLowIng centuries StrEngtheNeD thE Idea tHat, In the princiPIa, NewtOn had in faCt LAuncheD A secure METhOd in Natural philosophy, ONe WHich deserved to Be imitAtED. DUHEm dId nOt disagree WiTh thiS General HIsTORIcaL Perspective abOut the PrincIPia. howeveR, hE waS ResponSible FoR One Of the most inFlueNtial critIcisms OF the argUMent of uNiversAl gRavItatIOn, EsPecIaLLy aS DeScrIBed By Newton In ThE GeneRal SCHOLIum. ACcoRdinG to thE French physicIst, newtON beLieveD he haD "dedUcEd" his Theory Of uniVeRsal gravity from "PhenOmena". ThesE "phEnOmeNa" Would BE KepleR's oBseRvationAl laws oF PlaNeTARY mOtion, enunciated at tHe BEGiNning of BOok III OF tHe pRincipia UnDer This EXAct deNomiNAtIon ("PhaenOmena"). HOWeVeR, Duhem aRgUed thaT iT is Not PossiBLe to Derive The princIple oF Universal graviTAtion from KeplER's LAWs, NEithEr bY deduction nOr by ANy inDuctIVe GenERalizAtion. thE CoNClusion of the argumenT (uNiversAl graVity) is simply nOt consisteNT WIth the prEmisES (KEPler's laws) (Duhem 1991, 193). let us Look at DuheM'S argumenT. He beGins descRibing whaT FOllows frOm eAch Of KEplER'S lAws: This first lAW Of KePlEr's, "The rAdiAl vectoR frOm tHe sUn tO a Planet sweEps out an ArEa PrOpOrtIonal TO the time DuRinG wHicH the pLAnet's mOtion Is obSeRvED," diD, in fact, TEaCH newtOn ThAt eaCh pLaNet is ConsTAntLy subjeCted to a foRce DIrecTeD tOward thE sun. The second LaW of Kepler's, "thE orBit of eACH planet iS an ellipse having the sun aT One focuS," taUght hIm thAt the forcE atTractiNg a GIven plAnet vaRies wItH thE DIstanCE Of ThiS pLanet from tHE Sun, And thAt It is In an invErse ratio to the squaRE of This distance. THe tHird LAW oF KePLeR'S, "ThE sQUarES Of the periods of rEvolution oF tHE vArious planETs aRe ProportIonal to The cuBEs of the Major axes Of their orBiTs," shOWEd hIm that diffErent plaNets would, IF they WErE brouGht To the sAmE diStancE from tHE suN, undeRgo in rElAtion tO it atTrActions pRoportional to their respeCtive mAsses. (duhEm 1991, 191) AccordiNg tO duhEm, Newton iNferS the centriPetAl fOrce tOwaRD the SUn frOM KEplER's law Of elLIpses (now KEPlEr's FIRsT law); he inferS THE prOportIon OF the inVersE square of the distaNCe from the law of The aREAs (tOdaY keplEr'S second law);
 inquiry proposed in the P rincipia ―  a wa y w hos eeffe ctiv eness would be atte sted by its successful  appl ic a tion in  solv ing the tw o dif fi cu ltpr o bl ems m ent ioned a bove. Furt her mo re, the rece p ti on of theres olution of t hes e prob le msi n the  fo llowi ng cen t uriesstrengthe ne d  the i d ea that , in  the  Principia, Newto n  h a d in fact laun ched a  s e cu r e  me tho d in natur al  phil o sophy,o ne w h ich deserved to b e imitated. Duh em did  n otd isagre e wit ht his  general hi stor ical pers pectiv e  aboutt he Prin cipia.  Ho wev er,h ewa s r es p ons i bl e f o r o ne of th emo st in flue n t i a l cr iti cism s ofthe argumentofuniv e rsa l gra vitat ion,  e speci ally a s des cr ibed by Newtonin t he Genera l S ch oli um . Acc o rdingtothe  French  physic i st,  N e w t on  believed he had " de d u ce d" his t heoryo fun i versal g ra vit y fr o m  "phe nome n a" . These"pheno m en a"  wouldbe  Keple r' s o bse rvati o nallaws o f planet ary m o tion, enunciat e d at the begi n ni n g  o f  Boo k I II of the P rinc i piaunde r  t his exact  deno mi n at i on ("Phaenomena").Ho wever,  Duhe m argued that  it is not p o ssible t o de r iv e  the principle  of u niversal g r avitatio n fro m Kepler 's laws,n e ither by  de duc tio n n o r  b y any inducti v e  gen er alizati on.  The co ncl usi onofth e argumen t (unive rs al  g ra vit y) is simply n ot  co ns ist ent w i th the  prem ises  ( Ke p ler 's laws )  ( D u hem19 91 , 19 3).  L et us  loo k  at  Duhem' s argumen t.H e be gi ns  descri bing what fol lo ws from ea ch  of  Keple r ' s laws:This first law of Keple r 's, "Th e r adial  vec tor fromthe  sun t o a planet  sweep s out  a n a r e a pro p o rt ion al  to the ti m e  du ringwh ichthe pla net's motion is ob s erv ed," did, infac t, t e a ch  Ne w to n  th at eac h planet is const antly subj ec t ed  to a forc e  di re cted to ward th e sun .  The se cond lawof Kepler 's , "T h e  or bit of eac h planet  is an el l ipseh av ing t hesun at  o nefocus ," tau g hthim t hat th eforceattra ct ing a gi ven planet varies withthe di stanc e o f this pl ane t  fr om the su n, a nd that it  is  in  an i nve r se ra tiot othe squar e of this dist a nc e.T h ethird law o f K epl er's,  "T h e squa resof the periods of revolution ofthev a rio usp lane ts  are proportio nal  t o the cube sof the majo r axes o ft heirorbits ," sho wed him t ha t  diffe rent  pl anets wou ld,  i f  they w er eb rought  toth e same  dista n ce f r o m the sun, under go in r elati o n t o itat tractio n s pr oportional  to their r espect ivemasse s. (Duh em  1991,  19 1)  According to Duhem,  Newt on infe rs  the  ce ntripe talf o rce t owar dthe  Sun from K ep l er 's law  ofellip se s (n ow Kepler ' s firstlaw ) ; he in fe rst h e prop o rt i o n of the i nve rse s q u are of the dist a nc e  from  the l aw ofthe are a s ( to day Kep ler ' s  second l aw);
 inquiry_proposed in_the Principia ― a_way whose_effectiveness_would be_attested_by its successful_application in solving_the two difficult problems_mentioned above. Furthermore,_the_reception of the resolution of these problems in the following centuries strengthened the idea_that,_in the_Principia,_Newton_had in fact launched a_secure method in natural philosophy,_one which_deserved to be imitated. Duhem did not disagree_with_this general historical_perspective about the Principia. However, he was responsible for_one of the most influential criticisms_of the argument_of_universal_gravitation, especially as described_by Newton in the General Scholium._According to the French physicist, Newton_believed he had "deduced" his theory of_universal gravity from "phenomena". These "phenomena"_would be Kepler's observational laws_of planetary_motion, enunciated at the beginning_of Book III_of the_Principia under this_exact denomination ("Phaenomena"). However, Duhem argued_that it is_not possible to derive the principle_of_universal gravitation from_Kepler's_laws,_neither by_deduction nor by_any_inductive generalization._The_conclusion of the argument (universal gravity)_is_simply not consistent with the premises (Kepler's_laws) (Duhem 1991, 193)._Let_us look at Duhem's_argument. He begins describing what_follows from each of Kepler's laws:_This first_law of_Kepler's, "The radial vector from the sun to a planet sweeps_out an area proportional to the_time during which the_planet's motion_is_observed," did, in_fact,_teach Newton_that each planet is constantly subjected to_a force_directed toward the sun. The second_law of Kepler's, "The_orbit_of each planet is an ellipse_having the sun at one focus,"_taught him that the force_attracting_a_given planet varies with the_distance of this planet from the_sun, and that_it is in an inverse ratio to_the_square of this distance. The third_law_of Kepler's, "The squares of the_periods_of_revolution of the various planets_are proportional to the cubes of_the major axes of their orbits," showed him that_different planets would,_if they were brought to_the_same_distance from the sun, undergo in relation to it attractions_proportional to_their respective masses._(Duhem 1991, 191) According to Duhem, Newton infers the centripetal_force toward the Sun from Kepler's law_of ellipses (now Kepler's first law); he infers the proportion of_the inverse square of the distance from the_law of the areas (today Kepler's second_law);