 He writes: "This predilection for explanatory and mechanical theories is, of course, not a sufficient basis to distinguish English doctrines from the scientific traditions thriving in other countries" (Duhem 1974, 72; Chiappin 1989, 38-58). Both schools follow the synthetic approach to the mechanistic program. However, they differ in their ways of interpreting what theoretical physics and mechanical explanation are, how to represent their conceptual bases, and how to connect the conceptual and the empirical bases. The sharp distinctions between these schools can also be traced to distinctions between the metaphysical/rationalist and the pragmatist/empiricist view of the mechanistic program. These two views of scientific knowledge strongly influenced the various ways of interpreting the synthetic approach to mechanical theory. Undoubtedly, both views seek to explain physical phenomena according to the synthetic method. Both seek to elaborate Duhem's Critical Analysis of Mechanicism and his Defense of a Formal Conception of Theoretical Physics José R. N. Chiappin – Cássio Costa Laranjeiras 39 definite, specific and detailed models of matter and motion to explain physical phenomena mechanically, the characteristic feature of the synthetic method. However, one can reconstruct the common core of these two versions of the synthetic method to explicate physical phenomena mechanically as described by Duhem: In this method one begins by constructing a mechanism from all pieces; one says what are the bodies that compose it, what are their shapes, sizes and masses, and what forces act upon it, and from these data one draws the laws according to which the mechanism moves; then, by comparing these laws with the experimental laws it seeks to explain, one judges whether there is sufficient agreement between them (Duhem 1980, 95). At the root of the synthetic method of mechanical theory to explain physical phenomena mechanically is an attempt to define specific and detailed mechanisms, or mechanical models based on definite hypotheses about the shape of atoms and molecules, their size and their arrangement. For each category of physical phenomena the synthetic method defines a mechanical explanation based upon a specific number of bodies with a specific arrangement of shapes and definite motions and mass. These arrangements are supposed to express the causal explanation of, or to imitate and simulate, physical phenomena, or, "in the words of English physicists, [to be] a model" (Duhem 1980, 102). These mechanical models or mechanisms may further be made of dimensional and real elements, such as fluids or corpuscles with definite sizes, shapes and masses. When these models are made of plastic or
He writes: " This predilection for explanatory and mechanical theories is, of course, not a sufficient footing to identify English doctrines from the scientific traditions boom in early countries " (Duhem 1974, 72; Chiappin 1989, 38 - 58). Both schools follow the man-made approach to the mechanistic program. However, they disagree in their way of interpreting what theoretical purgative and mechanical explanation are, how to represent their conceptual bases, and how to connect the conceptual and the empirical basis. The sharp distinctions between these schools can also be traced to differentiation between the metaphysical / rationalist and the pragmatist / empiricist view of the mechanistic program. These two view of scientific knowledge strongly influenced the various manner of interpreting the synthetic approach to mechanical theory. Undoubtedly, both views search to explain physical phenomena according to the synthetic method. Both seek to elaborate Duhem's Critical Analysis of Mechanicism and his Defense of a Formal Conception of Theoretical Physics José R. N. Chiappin – Cássio Costa Laranjeiras 39 definite, specific and detailed models of matter and motion to explain physical phenomena mechanically, the characteristic feature of the synthetic method. However, one can rebuild the common core of these two adaptation of the celluloid method to explicate forcible phenomena mechanically as trace by Duhem: In this method one begins by reconstruct a mechanism from all pieces; one says what are the bodies that compose it, what are their shapes, size and masses, and what forces act upon it, and from these data one draws the laws harmonize to which the mechanism moves; then, by comparing these laws with the experimental laws it seeks to excuse, one judges whether there is sufficient agreement between them (Duhem 1980, 95). At the root of the synthetic method of mechanical theory to explain physical phenomena mechanically is an attack to define specific and detailed mechanisms, or mechanical models based on definite hypotheses about the human body of atoms and molecule, their size and their arrangement. For each class of physical phenomena the man-made method defines a mechanical explanation free-base upon a specific issue of bodies with a specific arrangement of shapes and definite motions and mass. These arrangements are supposed to express the causal explanation of, or to imitate and simulate, forcible phenomena, or, " in the words of English physicist, [ to be ] a model " (Duhem 1980, 102). These mechanical models or mechanisms may far be made of dimensional and real elements, such as fluid or corpuscles with definite sizes, shapes and masses. When these models are made of credit card or
 He writes: "This predilectiok for explanatori qnd merhanicam theorids is, of course, not a sufficment basiw to distinguish Englirh doctrijes from the wcientific traditions thdlving mn other countrles" (Duhem 1974, 72; Chiappin 1989, 38-58). Bodh sehools follow the synthetic approach to the mfchanistic prodram. Rowebvr, they differ in their ways of interpgeting what theorrtical physics and mechanifal fxplanation are, hoa to represght eyeir conceptjal bases, and how to cknnect the conceptual and the eopirieal bases. Tye shwtp distinctiins bvtween these schools wan alsp be traced to divtibctions between the mxtaphysical/rationalift and tha 'ragmatist/empiricist ciww of the mecfqnirtid 'rofram. Tjesx two views of scientidic knowledge stronblr influenced tge varyots ways of interpreting the synthetic akproadh to mechanical theory. Undoubtedly, both vieas seek tj explain physical phenomena according to the syndhetir oetkid. Bogy deek to elaborate Duhem's Critical Analysis of Jevhsnicism and hif Defense og w Gjrmal Conceptkon of Thsoretical Physics Uosé R. N. Chiappin – Cássyo Cpsta Laranjeiras 39 definite, wpecific and eetailed models of matter and motoon tp explain physical phenumenz mechanicaply, the cgxracteristic feagurv of the synufetic method. Howeder, one cen reeonstrucg thg commog core of hhese two versions of thf synjhetic method to explicate physical phenomena mxrhanically as dascgibed by Buhem: Ln this method jne begins by eonstruccing a mechanism from anl pieces; oge says what dte the bodies that coiposw it, what afd their shapes, sizes anb maswes, and what forcex azf upon it, and fxun these data onr dfawf nhe lwfs according to dhizn the mechanism nuves; then, by comparing tvese laws with the exprrlmental lqws it sqeks to explaon, one judges whetjer tiere ir sufgicyent agreement between them (Dugem 1980, 95). At hhe root of the synbhetyc method pf mechanical theory to explain physicao phenomena mechanucally is an attempj tp define spxcific and detahled mechanisms, or mwchanical models nased on definite hypofheses abouh the shape of atoms and molecules, their size and their arrangement. For eqch cavedory of phyaicak phetoizna the synvhxtic method definvs a mechanical explanation basev upon a s[eeific number of bodies with a soecific arraneement of shapes and defjnite moyions and mass. These arrangemenys are supposed to exprexs the cqusal explanatiun of, or to imitatr and vimulqte, phywicap phenomena, of, "im bhe words lf Eiglnsh physicists, [to be] a model" (Duhen 1980, 102). Thwsf mechanical modxls or mechakirms mzy furjher be made of djmenalonal and real elekents, such as gluids or corpuscles wyth definite sudes, shapes anc massev. When these models are made of plastic or
He writes: "This predilection for explanatory and is, course, not sufficient basis to scientific thriving in other (Duhem 1974, 72; 1989, 38-58). Both schools follow the approach to the mechanistic program. However, they differ in their ways of interpreting theoretical physics and mechanical explanation are, how to represent their conceptual bases, and to the and empirical bases. The sharp distinctions between these schools can also be traced to distinctions between the and the pragmatist/empiricist view of the mechanistic program. two views of scientific strongly influenced the various ways interpreting synthetic approach mechanical Undoubtedly, views seek to physical phenomena according to the synthetic method. Both seek to elaborate Duhem's Critical Analysis of Mechanicism and Defense of Conception of Physics R. Chiappin – Cássio 39 definite, specific and detailed models motion to explain physical phenomena mechanically, the characteristic of the method. However, one can reconstruct the core of these two versions of the synthetic to explicate physical phenomena mechanically as described by Duhem: In this method one begins by mechanism from all pieces; says what are bodies compose what their shapes, and masses, and what forces act upon it, and from these one draws the laws according to which the mechanism moves; comparing laws with the laws it seeks to one whether there is sufficient them 1980, root the method of mechanical theory explain physical phenomena mechanically is attempt to define specific models based on definite hypotheses about the shape atoms and molecules, their size and their For each category of physical phenomena the synthetic method defines a mechanical based upon number of bodies with a specific arrangement of and definite motions and These arrangements are supposed to express the causal explanation or imitate and physical phenomena, or, the words of physicists, [to be] (Duhem 1980, These models further be made of dimensional and elements, as fluids or corpuscles with sizes, masses. When these models are made of plastic or
 He writes: "This predilection fOr explanatOry anD meChaNiCal tHeorIes is, of course, nOT a suFficient basis to distingUish ENgLIsh dOCtRines From the SCiENTifIc TrAdiTiONs ThrivIng In other Countries" (DUheM 1974, 72; CHiappin 1989, 38-58). Both sCHoOls follow tHe sYnthetic apprOacH to the MeChaNIstic ProGram. HOwever, THey difFer in theiR wAYs of inTErpretiNG WhAt thEoretical physics aND mEChanical explanAtion aRe, HOw TO RepResEnt their coNcEptuaL Bases, anD HoW TO ConNEct the conceptUal and the emPIriCal basEs. the SHarp diStincTiONs bEtween these SchoOls can alsO be traCEd to disTInctionS betweEn tHe mEtapHYsIcAl/rAtIOnaLIsT anD The PragmatiSt/EmPiricIst vIEW OF the MecHaniStic pRogram. These twO viEws oF SciEntifIc knoWledGe StronGly infLuencEd The various ways oF intErpreting The SyNthEtIc appROach to MecHanIcal theOry. UndoUBteDlY, BOTh Views seek to explain PhYSIcAl phenomEna accORdInG To the synThEtiC metHOD. Both Seek TO eLaborate duhem's cRiTiCal AnalYsIs of MeChAniCisM and hIS DefEnse of A Formal COncepTIon of TheoreticAL Physics José R. n. chIAPpIN – CásSio costa LaranjEiraS 39 DefiNite, SPeCifIC and dEtailEd MOdELs of matter and motion To ExplaiN physIcal phenomena MechanicalLY, THe characTeriSTiC Feature of the syNthetIc method. HoWEver, one cAn recOnstruct The common CORe of thesE twO veRsiOns OF ThE synthetic metHOD to eXpLicate pHysIcal pheNomEna MecHanIcAlly as desCribed by duHeM: IN tHis MethoD One beginS bY coNsTruCting A MechanIsm frOm alL pIeCEs; oNe says wHAt ARE the BoDiEs thAt cOmPose iT, whaT Are Their shApes, sizes And MAsseS, aNd What forCes act upon it, aNd From these dAtA onE draws THE laws accOrding to which the mechaniSM moves; tHen, By comPariNg these laWs wIth the ExpERimentAl laws It seeKs To eXPLain, oNE JuDgeS wHether therE IS suFficiEnT agrEement bEtween them (Duhem 1980, 95). At tHE roOt of the syntheTic MethOD Of MecHAnICal ThEOry TO Explain physical Phenomena mEcHAnIcally is an ATteMpT to defiNe speciFic anD DetaileD mechanisMs, or mechaNiCal mODEls Based on defInite hypOtheses abOUt the SHaPe of aTomS and moLeCulEs, theIr size ANd tHeir aRrangeMeNt. For eAch caTeGory of phYsical phenomena the synthEtic meThod dEfiNes a mechaNicAL exPlanation BaseD upon a specIfiC nuMber oF boDIes wiTh a sPEcIfiC ArranGemeNT of shapes ANd DefINItE motions and MASS. ThEse arRanGEments Are sUpposed to express tHE causal explanaTion OF, Or tO imITate AnD simulate, physiCal PhENOmena, or, "iN tHe words of EnGlish phySiCIsts, [tO be] a moDel" (DuhEm 1980, 102). These MEChANical mOdelS or MechanismS maY fURther be MaDe OF dimenSionAl And reaL elemeNTs, suCH As fluids or corpusCles wITH defiNIte Sizes, ShApes and MAsseS. When these Models are maDe of plAstiC or
 He writes: "This predilec tion for e xplan ato ryan d me chan ical theoriesi s, o f course, not a suffic ientba s is t o  d istin guish E n gl i s h d oc tr ine sf ro m the  sc ientifi c traditio nsth riving in ot h er  countries " ( Duhem 1974,72;  Chiap pi n 1 9 89, 3 8-5 8). B oth sc h ools f ollow the  s y ntheti c  approa c h  t o th e mechanistic pro g ra m . However, the y diff er in t hei r w ays of int er preti n g whatt he o r e tic a l physics and  mechanical exp lanati on  ar e , howto re pr e sen t their con cept ual bases , andh ow to c o nnect t he con cep tua l an d  t he  em pi r ica l  b ase s . T he sharp  d is tinct ions b e t ween  th eseschoo ls can also b e t race d  to  dist incti onsbe tween  the m etaph ys ical/rationalis t an d the pra gma ti st/ em piric i st vie w o f t he mech anistic pro gr a m .  T hese two views ofsc i e nt ific kno wledge st ro n gly infl ue nce d th e vario us w a ys  of inte rpreti n gth e synth et ic app ro ach  to  mech a nica l theo ry. Undo ubted l y, both viewss eek to explai n  p h y si c al p hen omena accor ding to t he s y nt het i c met hod.Bo t hs eek to elaborate Du he m's Cr itica l Analysis of  Mechanici s m and hisDefe n se of a Formal Co ncept ion of The o reticalPhysi cs JoséR. N. Chi a p pin – Cá ssi o C ost a L a r an jeiras 39 def i n ite,  s pecific  an d detai led  mo del s o fmatter an d motion  t oex pl ain  phys i cal phen om ena  m ech anica l ly, th e cha ract er is t icfeature of t he s yn th etic  me th od. H owev e r,one can  reconstr uct theco mm on core  of these two  v ersions of  t hesynthe t i c method  to explicate physicalp henomen a m echan ical ly as des cri bed by  Du h em: In  thismetho done b egins b ycon st ructing am e cha nismfr om a ll piec es; one says whata rethe bodies th atcomp o s eit, wh a t a re the i r  shapes, sizesand masses ,a nd  what forc e s a ct  upon i t, andfromt hese da ta one dr aws the l aw s ac c o rdi ng to whic h the me chanism m o ves;t he n, by  co mparin gthe se la ws wit h  th e exp erimen ta l laws  it s ee ks to ex plain, one judges wheth er the re is  su fficientagr e eme nt betwee n th em (Duhem198 0,95).Att he ro ot o f  t hes ynthe ticm ethod ofm ec han i c al  theory toe x p lai n phy sic a l phen omen a mechanically is an attempt todefi n e  sp eci f ic a nd  detailed mech ani sm s ,  or mech an ical models  based o nd efini te hyp othese s about t he shapeof a tom s and mol ecu le s , their  s iz e  and t heir  a rrange ment.F or e a c h category of ph ysica l pheno m ena  thesy nthetic meth od defines  a mechanic al exp lana tionbased u po n a sp eci fi c number o f  bodies w ith a  specif ic  arr ang ementof s h a pes a nd d ef ini te motion s an d  m as s . T hese  arra ng emen ts are su p posed to  ex p ress th ecau s a l expl a na t i on of, ortoimita t e  and simul a te,p hy s icalphenom ena, o r, "int hewo rds ofEng l i sh physic ists, [to be]  a  mod el" (Duh em  198 0,  10 2) . These mechani cal mode ls or me c h anisms  ma y  fur t her be  m ade of dimen siona la nd real e lem ents, s u chasflu idsorcorp u scles with definite size s, s hapes and  mass es. W he n thesem odel s are ma d e of plasticor
 He_writes: "This_predilection for explanatory and_mechanical theories_is,_of course,_not_a sufficient basis_to distinguish English_doctrines from the scientific_traditions thriving in_other_countries" (Duhem 1974, 72; Chiappin 1989, 38-58). Both schools follow the synthetic approach to_the_mechanistic program._However,_they_differ in their ways of_interpreting what theoretical physics and_mechanical explanation_are, how to represent their conceptual bases, and_how_to connect the_conceptual and the empirical bases. The sharp distinctions between_these schools can also be traced_to distinctions between_the_metaphysical/rationalist_and the pragmatist/empiricist view_of the mechanistic program. These two_views of scientific knowledge strongly influenced_the various ways of interpreting the synthetic_approach to mechanical theory. Undoubtedly, both_views seek to explain physical_phenomena according_to the synthetic method. Both_seek to elaborate_Duhem's Critical_Analysis of Mechanicism_and his Defense of a Formal_Conception of Theoretical_Physics José R. N. Chiappin –_Cássio_Costa Laranjeiras 39_definite,_specific_and detailed_models of matter_and_motion to_explain_physical phenomena mechanically, the characteristic feature_of_the synthetic method. However, one can reconstruct_the common core of_these_two versions of the_synthetic method to explicate physical_phenomena mechanically as described by Duhem:_In this_method one_begins by constructing a mechanism from all pieces; one says what_are the bodies that compose it,_what are their shapes,_sizes and_masses,_and what forces_act_upon it,_and from these data one draws the_laws according_to which the mechanism moves; then,_by comparing these laws_with_the experimental laws it seeks to_explain, one judges whether there is_sufficient agreement between them (Duhem_1980,_95)._At the root of the_synthetic method of mechanical theory to_explain physical phenomena_mechanically is an attempt to define specific_and_detailed mechanisms, or mechanical models based_on_definite hypotheses about the shape of_atoms_and_molecules, their size and their_arrangement. For each category of physical_phenomena the synthetic method defines a mechanical explanation based_upon a specific_number of bodies with a_specific_arrangement_of shapes and definite motions and mass. These arrangements are_supposed to_express the causal_explanation of, or to imitate and simulate, physical phenomena, or,_"in the words of English physicists, [to_be] a model" (Duhem 1980, 102). These mechanical models or mechanisms_may further be made of dimensional and real_elements, such as fluids or corpuscles with_definite sizes, shapes and_masses._When these models are made of plastic_or