 investigation. She demonstrates disagreement with Sarton about the importance of providing biographies. 29 See Metzger (1935, 9). Daumas (1951, 1) also finds "irritant" the problem stemming from historical discussions about the priority of scientific discoveries. Kuhn indicates his work (1996 [1962], 53) as an "indispensable recent review [about oxygen's discovery], including an account of the priority controversy". 30 Metzger (1969 [1923], 155) cites section II, Chapter VII of La théorie physique. Besides it and Duhem's works about Chemistry, she cites his Le système du monde. 31 Kuhn, in 1952, had already mentioned Metzger's (1930 and 1923) and Meyerson's (1951) analysis as "more acute", which showed the "chemical revolution as proceeding not from a sudden break [...] but through an almost continuous extension and elaboration of the peripatetic and iatrochemical concepts" (Kuhn 1952, 14-15). 32 See Metzger (1969 [1923], 81, 342-343; 1935, 22), and specifically on conceptual change, see Metzger (1969 [1923], 61, 205; 1935, 13 and 19). 33 Kuhn (1996 [1962], 100, note 3) considered in SSR that "[t]he fullest and most sympathetic account of the phlogiston theory's achievements" is provided by Metzger in his Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave et la doctrine chimique (1930). 34 Marshall Clagett and Alistair Crombie are certainly other examples. Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the change in the historiography of science: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 136 highlights the Duhemian legacy for the promotion of historiographic change, a change that took place in different degrees among the makers of the revolution that Kuhn identified in its early stages in the early 1960s. Final Considerations It is important to remember that when Kuhn (1996 [1962], viii) wrote about the historians that were important in shaping his "conception of what the history of scientific ideas can be", he noted that he was "increasingly" questioning "a few of their particular historical interpretations". It is thus his article on Boyle that led Kuhn (1952) not only to analyze different historical views, but also to try to provide a completely new view about the subject
investigation. She demonstrates disagreement with Sarton about the importance of providing biography. 29 examine Metzger (1935, 9). Daumas (1951, 1) also finds " irritant " the trouble stemming from diachronic discussions about the priority of scientific discovery. Kuhn indicates his work (1996 [ 1962 ], 53) as an " essential late review [ about oxygen's discovery ], including an score of the priority controversy ". 30 Metzger (1969 [ 1923 ], 155) cites section II, Chapter VII of La théorie human body. Besides it and Duhem's works about Chemistry, she cites his Le système du monde. 31 Kuhn, in 1952, had already mention Metzger's (1930 and 1923) and Meyerson's (1951) analysis as " more acute ", which read the " chemical revolution as proceeding not from a sudden break [... ] but through an about continuous extension and elaboration of the aristotelian and iatrochemical concepts " (Kuhn 1952, 14 - 15). 32 understand Metzger (1969 [ 1923 ], 81, 342 - 343; 1935, 22), and specifically on conceptual change, see Metzger (1969 [ 1923 ], 61, 205; 1935, 13 and 19). 33 Kuhn (1996 [ 1962 ], 100, note 3) considered in SSR that " [ t]he fullest and about sympathetic account of the phlogiston theory's achievements " is provided by Metzger in his Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave et la doctrine chimique (1930). 34 Marshall Clagett and Alistair Crombie are certainly early example. Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy for the change in the historiography of science: An analysis based on Kuhn's writings 136 highlights the Duhemian legacy for the promotion of historiographic variety, a variety that took place in different academic degree among the makers of the revolution that Kuhn identified in its early stage in the early 1960s. Final Considerations It is important to remember that when Kuhn (1996 [ 1962 ], viii) write about the historians that were important in shaping his " conception of what the history of scientific ideas can be ", he noted that he was " increasingly " question " a few of their particular historical interpretations ". It is thus his article on Boyle that led Kuhn (1952) not only to analyze unlike historic views, but also to try to provide a wholly new view about the subject
 ingestigation. She demonstrxtes disagreemeur with Sartoh about ghe importance of providing uiogeaphitf. 29 See Metzger (1935, 9). Dxumas (1951, 1) apso findw "ircitant" the problxj stemmlug frkl hivvorical discusslons about dhe priority ox rcnentific discoveries. Kuhn indicates ris worl (1996 [1962], 53) as an "indiskensanje rsbekt review [about oxygen's discoverg], incluving an account of the priority controverdy". 30 Letzger (1969 [1923], 155) cites sfction II, Cyaptqe VII of La ghéorie physique. Besidea it and Duhem's works about Cheoistrv, she cites hus Pg système du nonde. 31 Kuhn, in 1952, had alreagy mentooned Metzger's (1930 aid 1923) qnd Meyerson's (1951) analysms as "more acute", whish showed tke "chemical revolutiob qs prmceeging bot frkm a suddej bceak [...] but tgrough an aomost continuous exuenfppn and elabodation os the peripatetic and iatrochemical conbepta" (Kuhn 1952, 14-15). 32 See Metzger (1969 [1923], 81, 342-343; 1935, 22), and specifically on conce[tual change, see Metzger (1969 [1923], 61, 205; 1935, 13 and 19). 33 Kuhn (1996 [1962], 100, note 3) conakdexcq un SSR that "[t]he fullest and most sympathetic acskumt of the phlogifton theory'x wcnyevements" is krovideb bg Metzger in his Nfwton, Sjahl, Bierhaave tt la doctrine chimique (1930). 34 Marshaol Clagett aud Qlistair Crombie axe certainly othgr exakples. Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhsm's legacy vor the cgxnge in the histuripgsaphy of science: An analysys based in Kbhn's wrigingx 136 higrlights thf Duhckian legacy for thf prolodion of hidtoriographic change, a change tiet took place it dpfferent begreex among the mwkers of the rgvolution that Kuhn idennified in its early ftages in the garly 1960s. Final Considewatiins Ut is iooortant to remrmber than chen Kuhn (1996 [1962], viii) wrote aboub the gistorians that wetw important in shxpigg hms "cogweption of wvat ghe nistofy of scienbifkc iceas can be", he noted thaf he was "increasinbln" questiobing "a fqw of their psrticular historicwl inverprevationx". Ij is thus his article on Boyle fhat led Nuhk (1952) not only tj anqlyze differznt historical views, but also to try to 'rovide a completely ngw view about the sublegt
investigation. She demonstrates disagreement with Sarton about of biographies. 29 Metzger (1935, 9). "irritant" problem stemming from discussions about the of scientific discoveries. Kuhn indicates his (1996 [1962], 53) as an "indispensable recent review [about oxygen's discovery], including an of the priority controversy". 30 Metzger (1969 [1923], 155) cites section II, Chapter of théorie Besides and Duhem's works about Chemistry, she cites his Le système du monde. 31 Kuhn, in 1952, already mentioned Metzger's (1930 and 1923) and Meyerson's analysis as "more acute", showed the "chemical revolution as not a sudden [...] through almost continuous extension elaboration of the peripatetic and iatrochemical concepts" (Kuhn 1952, 14-15). 32 See Metzger (1969 [1923], 81, 342-343; 22), and conceptual change, Metzger [1923], 205; 1935, 13 33 Kuhn (1996 [1962], 100, note SSR that "[t]he fullest and most sympathetic account the phlogiston achievements" is provided by Metzger in Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave et la doctrine chimique (1930). Marshall Clagett and Alistair Crombie are certainly other examples. Amélia J. Oliveira – Duhem's legacy change in the historiography science: An analysis on writings highlights Duhemian legacy the promotion of historiographic change, a change that took place in degrees among the makers of the revolution that Kuhn identified early in the early Final Considerations It is to that when Kuhn (1996 wrote the important shaping "conception of what the of scientific ideas can be", noted that he was their particular historical interpretations". It is thus his on Boyle that led Kuhn (1952) not to analyze different historical views, but also to try to provide a new view subject
 investigation. She demonstraTes disagreEment WitH SaRtOn abOut tHe importance of PRoviDing biographies. 29 See MetzGer (1935, 9). DaUmAS (1951, 1) alsO FiNds "irRitant" tHE pROBleM sTeMmiNg FRoM histOriCal discUssions aboUt tHe Priority of scIEnTific discoVerIes. Kuhn indicAteS his woRk (1996 [1962], 53) As aN "IndisPenSable Recent REview [aBout oxygeN's DIscoveRY], includING aN accOunt of the priority COnTRoversy". 30 Metzger (1969 [1923], 155) Cites sEcTIoN ii, ChAptEr VII of La tHéOrie pHYsique. BESiDES It aND Duhem's works aBout ChemistRY, shE cites HiS Le SYstème Du monDe. 31 kUhn, In 1952, had alreadY menTioned MetZger's (1930 aND 1923) and MeyERson's (1951) anAlysis As "mOre AcutE", WhIcH shOwED thE "ChEmiCAl rEvolutioN aS pRoceeDing NOT FRom a SudDen bReak [...] bUt through an alMosT conTInuOus exTensiOn anD eLaborAtion oF the pErIpatetic and iatrOcheMical concEptS" (KUhn 1952, 14-15). 32 seE MetzGEr (1969 [1923], 81, 342-343; 1935, 22), and sPecIfiCally on ConceptUAl cHaNGE, SeE Metzger (1969 [1923], 61, 205; 1935, 13 and 19). 33 Kuhn (1996 [1962], 100, notE 3) cONSiDered in SsR that "[T]He FuLLest and mOsT syMpatHETic acCounT Of The phlogIston tHEoRy'S achievEmEnts" is PrOviDed By MetZGer iN his NeWton, StahL, BoerHAave et la doctriNE chimique (1930). 34 MarsHAlL cLaGEtt aNd AListair CromBie aRE cerTainLY oTheR ExampLes. AmÉlIA J. oLiveira – Duhem's legacy FoR the chAnge iN the historiogRaphy of sciENCE: An analySis bASeD On Kuhn's writingS 136 highLights the DUHemian leGacy fOr the proMotion of hISToriograPhiC chAngE, a cHANgE that took placE IN difFeRent degReeS among tHe mAkeRs oF thE rEvolution That Kuhn IdEnTiFiEd iN its eARly stageS iN thE eArlY 1960s. FinAL ConsiDeratIons it Is IMpoRtant to REmEMBer tHaT wHen KUhn (1996 [1962], ViIi) wroTe abOUt tHe histoRians that WerE ImpoRtAnT in shapIng his "conceptIoN of what the HiStoRy of scIENtific idEas can be", he noted that he waS "IncreasIngLy" queStioNing "a few oF thEir parTicULar hisToricaL inteRpRetATIons". IT IS tHus HiS article on bOYle That lEd kuhn (1952) Not only To analyze different HIstOrical views, buT alSo to TRY tO prOViDE a cOmPLetELY new view about thE subject
 investigation. She demons trates dis agree men t w it h Sa rton  about the imp o rtan ce of providing biogra phies .2 9 Se e  M etzge r (1935 ,  9 ) .  Da um as  (1 95 1 ,1) al sofinds " irritant"the  p roblem stemm i ng  from hist ori cal discussi ons  about  t hep riori tyof sc ientif i c disc overies.Ku h n indi c ates hi s wo rk ( 1996 [1962], 53)a sa n "indispensab le rec en t  r e v iew  [a bout oxyge n' s dis c overy], in c l u din g  an account o f the prior i tycontro ve rsy " . 30 M etzge r( 196 9 [1923], 1 55)cites sec tion I I , Chapt e r VII o f La t héo rie  phy s iq ue . B es i des it  an d  Du hem's wo rk sabout  Che m i s t ry,she  cit es hi s Le systèmedumond e . 3 1 Kuh n, in  195 2,  hadalread y men ti oned Metzger's(193 0 and 192 3)an d M ey erson ' s (195 1)ana lysis a s "more acu te " , wh ich showed the "ch em i c al  revolut ion as pr oc e eding no tfro m as u ddenbrea k  [ ...] but  throu g han  almost  c ontinu ou s e xte nsion andelabor ation of  thep eripatetic and iatrochemical co n c ep t s" ( Kuh n 1952, 14- 15). 32 S ee M e tz ger (1969  [192 3] ,  8 1 , 342-343; 1935, 22 ),  and s pecif ically on con ceptual ch a n g e, see M etzg e r( 1969 [1923], 6 1, 20 5; 1935, 1 3  and 19) . 33Kuhn (19 96 [1962] , 100, not e 3 ) c ons ide r e din SSR that " [ t ]hefu llest a ndmost sy mpa the tic  ac co unt of th e phlogi st on  t he ory 's ac h ievement s"  is  p rov idedb y Metz ger i n hi sNe w ton , Stahl ,  B o e rhaa ve  e t la  do ct rinechim i que  (1930) . 34 Mars hal l  Cla ge tt  and Al istair Crombi eare certai nl y o ther e x a mples. A mélia J. Oliveira – Duh e m's leg acy  forthechange in  th e hist ori o graphy  of sc ience :Ana n alysi s ba sed  o n Kuhn's w r i tin gs 13 6high lightsthe Duhemian legac y  fo r the promoti onof h i s to rio g ra p hic  c h ang e ,  a change thattook place  i n  d ifferent d e gre es  amongthe mak ers o f  the re volutionthat Kuhn  i dent i f ied  in its ea rly stag es in the early 19 60s.Fin al Con si der ation s It i s  im porta nt tore member  that  w hen Kuhn  (1996 [1962], viii) wr ote ab out t hehistorian s t h atwere impo rtan t in shapi nghis  "con cep t ion o f wh a tthe histo ry o f  scientif i cide a s  c an be", hen o t edthathew as "in crea singly" questioni n g "a few of th eirp a rti cul a r hi st orical interpr eta ti o n s". It i sthus his ar ticle on  B o yle t hat le d Kuhn  (1952) n ot only t o an aly ze differ ent  h i storica lvi e ws, bu t al so  to tr y to p r ovid e a completely new  view a boutt hesubje ct 
 investigation._She demonstrates_disagreement with Sarton about_the importance_of_providing biographies._29_See Metzger (1935,_9). Daumas (1951,_1) also finds "irritant"_the problem stemming_from_historical discussions about the priority of scientific discoveries. Kuhn indicates his work (1996 [1962],_53)_as an_"indispensable_recent_review [about oxygen's discovery], including_an account of the priority_controversy". 30_Metzger (1969 [1923], 155) cites section II, Chapter_VII_of La théorie_physique. Besides it and Duhem's works about Chemistry, she_cites his Le système du monde._31 Kuhn, in_1952,_had_already mentioned Metzger's (1930_and 1923) and Meyerson's (1951) analysis_as "more acute", which showed the_"chemical revolution as proceeding not from a_sudden break [...] but through an_almost continuous extension and elaboration_of the_peripatetic and iatrochemical concepts" (Kuhn_1952, 14-15). 32_See Metzger_(1969 [1923], 81,_342-343; 1935, 22), and specifically on_conceptual change, see_Metzger (1969 [1923], 61, 205; 1935,_13_and 19). 33_Kuhn_(1996_[1962], 100,_note 3) considered_in_SSR that_"[t]he_fullest and most sympathetic account of_the_phlogiston theory's achievements" is provided by Metzger_in his Newton, Stahl,_Boerhaave_et la doctrine chimique_(1930). 34 Marshall Clagett and_Alistair Crombie are certainly other examples._Amélia J._Oliveira –_Duhem's legacy for the change in the historiography of science: An_analysis based on Kuhn's writings 136_highlights the Duhemian legacy_for the_promotion_of historiographic change,_a_change that_took place in different degrees among the_makers of_the revolution that Kuhn identified in_its early stages in_the_early 1960s. Final Considerations It is_important to remember that when Kuhn_(1996 [1962], viii) wrote about_the_historians_that were important in shaping_his "conception of what the history_of scientific ideas_can be", he noted that he was_"increasingly"_questioning "a few of their particular_historical_interpretations". It is thus his article_on_Boyle_that led Kuhn (1952) not_only to analyze different historical views,_but also to try to provide a completely new_view about the_subject