, since premature) ideas of A.-A. Cournot - undoubtedly one of the author's preferred scholars, along with E. Naville and P. Duhem - but also include those of Cl. Bernard, as well as É. Boutroux's radical yet minority antireductionism and, conversely, the reductionism of J. Soury whose personal and intellectual evolution seems representative of that of his entire era. Determinist discussions are the subject of three consecutive chapters chronicling, as central figures, J. Boussinesq with his multidisciplinary, original research program, and the philosopher and theologian E. Naville with his flexible and dynamic epistemology. Since the emergent intellectual movement was characterized by a new awareness of the historical and philosophical complexity of the scientific process, it is to be expected that this realization would give rise, aside from those Jean-François Stoffel – Dossier Pierre Duhem – Book Review 165 originating in traditional historiography, to further research in the history of science conducted according to a new historiographic framework. Chapter 7 is also devoted to the history of science, with three personalities corresponding to three different stages: M. Berthelot typifying a radical and naïve historiography of Comtean inspiration, which is however somewhat tempered by the collective nature of its endeavour; P. Tannery typifying a history of science based on multiple skills and largely devoid of any hagiographic or ideological perspective; and lastly, G. Milhaud typifying an attempt to summarize the erudite research of his predecessor, and to combine history and philosophy of science. Since Duhem personifies, through the original ideas he developed within the context of his firsthand experience in scientific research, the very essence of the sophisticated alliance between science, history and philosophy, this study naturally culminates in two chapters dedicated to him. Finally, it is worth noting the existence of an "epilogue", which, although of somewhat heterogeneous content, is nonetheless invaluable. We would like to conclude this review by focusing more specifically on the role attributed to P. Duhem. Having previously evoked the fact that Duhemian physics issued from the scholars who preceded him (Taming complexity: Duhem's third pathway to thermodynamics, 2012), St. Bordoni - as foreseen - continues his enquiry by examining those elements of Duhem's scientific philosophy which are ascribable to his numerous philosophic and scientific forefathers. From the onset we notice the emergence of an
, since premature) ideas of A.-A. Cournot - undoubtedly one of the author's preferred scholar, along with E. Naville and P. Duhem - but besides include those of Cl. Bernard, as well as É. Boutroux's extremist yet minority antireductionism and, conversely, the reductionism of J. Soury whose personal and cerebral evolution seems representative of that of his entire earned run average. fatalist discussions are the subject of three consecutive chapters chronicling, as cardinal figures, J. Boussinesq with his multidisciplinary, original research program, and the philosopher and theologian E. Naville with his flexible and active epistemology. Since the emergent intellectual movement was qualify by a new awareness of the historical and philosophic complexity of the scientific process, it is to be expected that this realization would give raise, aside from those Jean - François Stoffel – Dossier Pierre Duhem – Book Review 165 originating in traditional historiography, to further research in the history of skill conducted accord to a new historiographic model. Chapter 7 is also devoted to the history of science, with three personalities corresponding to three unlike stages: M. Berthelot typifying a radical and naïve historiography of Comtean inspiration, which is however somewhat tempered by the collective nature of its endeavour; P. Tannery typifying a history of science based on multiple skills and largely devoid of any hagiographic or ideological perspective; and lastly, G. Milhaud typifying an attempt to sum up the erudite inquiry of his predecessor, and to combine history and philosophy of skill. Since Duhem personify, through the original ideas he developed within the context of his firsthand experience in scientific research, the very essence of the sophisticated alliance between skill, history and philosophy, this study naturally culminates in two chapters dedicated to him. Finally, it is worth noting the existence of an " epilogue ", which, although of somewhat heterogeneous content, is however invaluable. We would like to reason this review by focusing more specifically on the role attributed to P. Duhem. Having previously evoked the fact that Duhemian physics write out from the scholars who preceded him (Taming complexity: Duhem's third pathway to thermodynamics, 2012), St. Bordoni - as foreseen - continues his enquiry by examining those elements of Duhem's scientific doctrine which are ascribable to his numerous philosophic and scientific forefathers. From the onset we notice the emergence of an
, sijce premature) ideas of A.-X. Cournot - undoobredly mne of the autfor's preferred scholars, alonj wirh E. Baville and P. Duhem - bjt also ijclude tyose if Cl. Bernedd, as wcjl aa É. Bobtcoux's radical ygt minority dntireductionivm aud, conversely, the reductionism of J. Foury wnode personal anq inueljecthal evolution seems representative of thau of his entire ers. Determinist discussions wre hhe subject of thrfe consecutuve syapters chrovicling, as central figores, J. Boussinesq with his multiaisci'linary, oritibal tesearch projram, agd the philosopher atd theokogian E. Navilke xith his flexible and dynemic epistemology. Sigce the ekexgent intellectual mocenent fas wharxxtefiztd uy z new wwaceness of tge historicql and philosophicak simplexity of fhe scyegtific process, it is to be expected thau thia realization would givw rise, aside from thode Jean-Frwnçois Stoffel – Dossier Pierre Duhem – Book Review 165 origmnxtiun kb hraditional historiography, to further researcr im nhe history of sclence conducted acvogdogg to a new hkstoriogrzphic framework. Chwpter 7 ys alwo devoteq to the history of science, wity three persjbalities corresponbing to threz diffgrent xtages: M. Berthelot typiyying z radical ajd naïve hjrtoriography of Zomnean inspiraukon, which is howeder somewiat tzmpered cy tne coljective nahure of its endeavour; P. Hannety typhfying a hlstory of science based on multm'le skills anc narcely devjid on any hagiograpric or ideologncal perfpectkve; and laatly, G. Kilhaud typyfying an attalpt to summacize the qrudute eesearcf of his predecrssor, and to combinw history and philpsokhg of science. Siuee Duhem personifoes, thwolgh tra original igeas he ceveluped wiukin ghe vontext of his firstvand experience in scirnbific resgarch, the very essence of the sophisticaued alniaice beywegn science, history and philosopgy, this shudn naturally ctlmikatef in two ckapters dedicated to him. Finally, it is wirth noting the exustence of an "epiloyut", which, althongh of somewhat heterogeneous contebt, is nonetheless invaluable. We would mike tm conflude this review by focusing more specifically on the role attributed to P. Duhxm. Having prebiouxly enokzd che face thet Duhemian physicx issued from the scholars who 'receded hhm (Taming complexity: Duhem's thora pathway to jhermodynamics, 2012), St. Bordoni - as forrseen - continues his enquiry by examining those elementx of Duhwm's sdientific 'hilosophy which are ascriyable ro his bumevous philosophkc snf scientivic horzfathers. From the onset we notice the eneggence of an
, since premature) ideas of A.-A. Cournot one the author's scholars, along with - also include those Cl. Bernard, as as É. Boutroux's radical yet minority and, conversely, the reductionism of J. Soury whose personal and intellectual evolution seems of that of his entire era. Determinist discussions are the subject of three chapters as figures, Boussinesq with his multidisciplinary, original research program, and the philosopher and theologian E. Naville with his and dynamic epistemology. Since the emergent intellectual movement characterized by a new of the historical and philosophical of scientific process, is be that this realization give rise, aside from those Jean-François Stoffel – Dossier Pierre Duhem – Book Review 165 originating in historiography, to in the of conducted to a new Chapter 7 is also devoted to science, with three personalities corresponding to three different M. Berthelot a radical and naïve historiography of inspiration, which is however somewhat tempered by the nature of its endeavour; P. Tannery typifying a history of science based on multiple skills devoid of any hagiographic ideological perspective; and G. typifying attempt summarize the research of his predecessor, and to combine history and philosophy of Since Duhem personifies, through the original ideas he developed within of firsthand experience in research, the very essence the alliance between science, history this naturally chapters to Finally, it is worth the existence of an "epilogue", although of somewhat heterogeneous would like to conclude this review by focusing specifically on the role attributed to P. Having previously evoked the fact that Duhemian physics issued from the scholars preceded him Duhem's third pathway to thermodynamics, 2012), St. Bordoni as foreseen - continues enquiry by examining those elements of Duhem's scientific philosophy are to his philosophic and scientific From the onset notice the emergence
, since premature) ideas of A.-A. CoUrnot - undouBtedlY onE of ThE autHor's Preferred scholARs, alOng with E. Naville and P. DuhEm - but AlSO incLUdE thosE of Cl. BeRNaRD, As wElL aS É. BOuTRoUx's raDicAl yet miNority antiRedUcTionism and, coNVeRsely, the reDucTionism of J. SoUry Whose pErSonAL and iNteLlectUal evoLUtion sEems repreSeNTative OF that of HIS eNtirE era. Determinist diSCuSSions are the subJect of ThREe CONseCutIve chapterS cHroniCLing, as cENtRAL FigURes, J. BoussinesQ with his mulTIdiScipliNaRy, oRIginal ReseaRcH ProGram, and the pHiloSopher and TheoloGIan E. NavILle with His fleXibLe aNd dyNAmIc EpiStEMolOGy. sinCE thE emergenT iNtEllecTual MOVEMent Was CharActerIzed by a new awaRenEss oF The HistoRical And pHiLosopHical cOmpleXiTy of the scientifIc prOcess, it is To bE eXpeCtEd thaT This reAliZatIon woulD give riSE, asIdE FROm Those Jean-François SToFFEl – dossier PIerre DUHeM – BOOk Review 165 OrIgiNatiNG In traDitiONaL historiOgraphY, To FuRther reSeArch in ThE hiStoRy of sCIencE conduCted accoRding TO a new historiogRAphic frameworK. chAPTeR 7 Is alSo dEvoted to the HistORy of ScieNCe, WitH Three PersoNaLItIEs corresponding to thReE diffeRent sTages: M. BerthelOt typifyinG A RAdical anD naïVE hIStoriography of comteAn inspiratIOn, which iS howeVer somewHat temperED By the colLecTivE naTurE OF iTs endeavour; P. TANNery TyPifying A hiStory of SciEncE baSed On Multiple sKills and LaRgElY dEvoId of aNY hagiogrApHic Or IdeOlogiCAl persPectiVe; anD lAsTLy, G. milhaud TYpIFYing An AtTempT to SuMmariZe thE EruDite resEarch of hiS prEDeceSsOr, And to coMbine history aNd Philosophy Of SciEnce. SiNCE Duhem peRsonifies, through the origINal ideaS he DevelOped Within the ConText of His FIrsthaNd expeRiencE iN scIENtifiC REsEarCh, The very essENCe oF the sOpHistIcated aLliance between scieNCe, hIstory and philOsoPhy, tHIS sTudY NaTUraLlY CulMINates in two chaptErs dedicatEd TO hIm. Finally, iT Is wOrTh notinG the exiStencE Of an "epiLogue", whicH, although Of SomeWHAt hEterogeneoUs contenT, is nonethELess iNVaLuablE. We Would lIkE to ConclUde thiS RevIew by FocusiNg More spEcifiCaLly on the Role attributed to P. Duhem. HAving pRevioUslY evoked thE faCT thAt DuhemiaN phySics issued FroM thE schoLarS Who prEcedED hIm (TAMing cOmplEXity: Duhem'S ThIrd PAThWay to thermoDYNAmiCs, 2012), St. BOrdONi - as foReseEn - continues his enqUIry by examining ThosE ELemEntS Of DuHeM's scientific phIloSoPHY which arE aScribable to His numerOuS PhiloSophic And sciEntific FOReFAthers. from The Onset we noTicE tHE emergeNcE oF An
, since premature) ideas o f A.-A. Co urnot  -und ou bted ly o ne of the auth o r'spreferred scholars, al ong w it h  E.N av illeand P.D uh e m  -bu tals oi nc ludetho se of C l. Bernard , a swell as É. B o ut roux's rad ica l yet minori tyantire du cti o nismand , con versel y , thereduction is m  of J. Soury w h o se  per sonal and intelle c tu a l evolution se ems re pr e se n t ati veof that of  h is en t ire era .  D e t e rmi n ist discussio ns are thes ubj ect of  t hre e  conse cutiv ec hap ters chroni clin g, as cen tral f i gures,J . Bouss inesqwit h h is m u lt id isc ip l ina r y,  or i gin al resea rc hprogr am,a n d thephi loso pherand theologia n E . Na v ill e wit h his  fle xi ble a nd dyn amicep istemology. Sin ce t he emerge ntin tel le ctual moveme ntwas  charac terized byan e w  a wareness of the hi st o r ic al and p hiloso p hi ca l  complex it y o f th e scien tifi c  p rocess,it ist obe  expect ed  thatth isrea lizat i on w ould g ive rise , asi d e from those J e an-François S t of f e l–  Dos sie r Pierre Du hem–  Boo k Re v ie w 1 6 5 ori ginat in g  i n  traditional histor io graphy , tofurther resea rch in the h i story of  sci e nc e  conducted acc ordin g to a new historio graph ic frame work. Cha p t er 7 isals o d evo ted t othe history o f scie nc e, with  th ree per son ali tie s c or respondin g to thr ee  d if fe ren t sta g es: M. B er the lo t t ypify i ng a r adica l an dna ï vehistori o gr a p hy o fCo mtea n i ns pirat ion, whi ch is h owever so mew h at t em pe red bythe collectiv enature ofit s e ndeavo u r ; P. Tan nery typifying a histor y  of sci enc e bas ed o n multipl e s killsand largel y devo id of  a nyh a giogr a p hi c o rideologica l per spect iv e; a nd last ly, G. Milhaud typ i fyi ng an attempt  to  sum m a ri zet he eru di t e r e s earch of his pr edecessor,  a n dto combine his to ry andphiloso phy o f  scienc e. SinceDuhem per so nifi e s , t hrough the  origina l ideas h e  deve l op ed wi thi n theco nte xt of  his f i rst handexperi en ce inscien ti fic rese arch, the very essenceof the  soph ist icated al lia n cebetween s cien ce, histor y a ndphilo sop h y, th is s t ud y n a tural ly c u lminatesi ntwo c ha pters dedic a t e d t o him . F i nally,  itis worth noting t h e existence of  an" e pil ogu e ", w hi ch, although o f s om e w hat hete ro geneous con tent, is  n o nethe less i nvalua ble. We w ou l d like  tocon clude thi s r ev i ew by f oc us i ng mor e sp ec ifical ly ont he r o l e attributed toP. Du h e m. Ha v ing  prev io usly ev o kedthe fact t hat Duhemia n phys icsissue d fromth e scho lar swho preced e d him (Ta mingcomplex it y: D uhe m's th irdp a thway  toth erm odynamics , 20 1 2) ,S t.Bord oni -  a s fo reseen -c ontinues  hi s  enquir ybye x aminin g  t h o se element s o f Duh e m 's scienti f ic p h il o sophy  which  are a scribab l e t ohis num ero u s  philosop hic and s c ien ti ficforefath er s. F ro m t he  onset we notic e the em ergenceo f  an
, since_premature) ideas_of A.-A. Cournot -_undoubtedly one_of_the author's_preferred_scholars, along with_E. Naville and_P. Duhem - but_also include those_of_Cl. Bernard, as well as É. Boutroux's radical yet minority antireductionism and, conversely, the_reductionism_of J._Soury_whose_personal and intellectual evolution seems_representative of that of his_entire era._Determinist discussions are the subject of three consecutive_chapters_chronicling, as central_figures, J. Boussinesq with his multidisciplinary, original research program,_and the philosopher and theologian E._Naville with his_flexible_and_dynamic epistemology. Since the_emergent intellectual movement was characterized by_a new awareness of the historical_and philosophical complexity of the scientific process,_it is to be expected that_this realization would give rise,_aside from_those Jean-François Stoffel – Dossier_Pierre Duhem –_Book Review_165 originating in_traditional historiography, to further research in_the history of_science conducted according to a new_historiographic_framework. Chapter 7_is_also_devoted to_the history of_science,_with three_personalities_corresponding to three different stages: M._Berthelot_typifying a radical and naïve historiography of_Comtean inspiration, which is_however_somewhat tempered by the_collective nature of its endeavour;_P. Tannery typifying a history of_science based_on multiple_skills and largely devoid of any hagiographic or ideological perspective; and_lastly, G. Milhaud typifying an attempt_to summarize the erudite_research of_his_predecessor, and to_combine_history and_philosophy of science. Since Duhem personifies, through_the original_ideas he developed within the context_of his firsthand experience_in_scientific research, the very essence of_the sophisticated alliance between science, history_and philosophy, this study naturally_culminates_in_two chapters dedicated to him._Finally, it is worth noting the_existence of an_"epilogue", which, although of somewhat heterogeneous content,_is_nonetheless invaluable. We would like to_conclude_this review by focusing more specifically_on_the_role attributed to P. Duhem._Having previously evoked the fact that_Duhemian physics issued from the scholars who preceded him_(Taming complexity: Duhem's_third pathway to thermodynamics, 2012),_St._Bordoni_- as foreseen - continues his enquiry by examining those_elements of_Duhem's scientific philosophy_which are ascribable to his numerous philosophic and scientific forefathers._From the onset we notice the emergence_of an