en's contributions to science and technology. This lack of interest for the great theoretical and methodological questions translated into very casual descriptions of key events in the history of the relationship between science and faith, such as the problems of the Copernican revolution or Galileo. In the name of the supreme value of facts, the journal offered studies that would never induce an unknowing reader to suspect that the Church ever stood against science. There were only rare articles proposing religious beliefs, rather than facts, as the judge for scientific theories. The position of the journal's director, Monsignor Maffi, seems to have had little influence: he postulated the faith in the wise doing of a perfect Maker of the universe as the grounds to reject theories, basically in the name of an unclear idea of simplicity. Maffi expressed himself vehemently against Positivism, which, by separating science from faith and giving it autonomy, had turned it into an inert and lifeless scheme, unable to relate to men and mean something to them. Such reprimands are unlikely to have seemed attractive to the majority of the journal's collaborators. The positive apologia promoted by the journal was based on the idea that sooner or later a vision of nature that was fully coherent with the religious dogmas would emerge from the pursuit of factual truth. And the journal's pages were full of that "cold", "silent" and "lifeless" science Monsignor Maffi was so strongly against. Needless to say, Duhem's refined epistemology-based apologetics found no space whatsoever either among the adorers of the "fact" (a notion Duhem had destroyed), or in the ideas of Maffi, who chose religion as the judge of scientific theories, whereas Duhem had separated the two areas and established they were to be connected only with the help of history. This overview, short as it may be, should have demonstrated how the Italian philosophical circles were inherently unfit for studying and appreciating Duhem's thought. For different reasons, Idealism, Positivism, Pragmatism, the De Sarlo group and the Catholics were all travelling on rails that could never cross paths with Duhem's complex philosophy. However, not only philosophers were to blame. Italian scientists must be held responsible as well, as they did nothing to highlight the debates that were taking place among their French colleagues. After all, why should philosophers have been aware of Poincaré, Duhem, etc., while scientists were not? The Italian scientific circles neglected almost completely
en's contributions to science and technology. This lack of interest for the big theoretical and methodological question translated into very casual descriptions of cardinal events in the history of the relationship between science and religion, such as the problems of the Copernican revolution or Galileo. In the name of the sovereign value of fact, the journal propose studies that would never induce an unknowing proofreader to suspect that the Church ever stood against science. There were only rare article proposing religious beliefs, rather than fact, as the judge for scientific theories. The position of the journal's film director, Monsignor Maffi, seems to have had little influence: he postulated the faith in the fresh doing of a perfect Maker of the universe as the grounds to reject theories, basically in the name of an unclear idea of simplicity. Maffi expressed himself vehemently against Positivism, which, by separating science from faith and giving it autonomy, had turned it into an inert and lifeless scheme, unable to associate to men and mean something to them. Such rebuke are improbable to have seem attractive to the majority of the journal's collaborators. The plus apology promoted by the journal was based on the theme that sooner or later a vision of nature that was fully coherent with the religious dogmas would emerge from the pursuit of factual truth. And the journal's pages were wide of that " cold ", " silent " and " lifeless " skill Monsignor Maffi was therefore strongly against. Needless to say, Duhem's refined epistemology - free-base apologetics found no space whatsoever either among the adorers of the " fact " (a impression Duhem had destroyed), or in the mind of Maffi, who chose religion as the judge of scientific hypothesis, whereas Duhem had separated the two areas and establish they were to be connected merely with the help of history. This overview, inadequate as it may be, should have demonstrated how the Italian philosophic circles were inherently unfit for studying and appreciate Duhem's thought. For unlike reasons, Idealism, Positivism, Pragmatism, the De Sarlo group and the Catholics were all travelling on rails that could never intersect paths with Duhem's complex philosophy. However, not only philosophers were to blame. Italian scientists must be hold responsible as well, as they cause nothing to highlight the debates that were taking place among their French colleagues. After all, why should philosopher have been aware of Poincaré, Duhem, etc. , while scientists were not? The Italian scientific circles neglected almost completely
en's contributions to scienct and technology. Jhus lacn of ihterest wor the great theoretical anv merhodooogical questions tranrlated inno very cqsuao descriptions of kcv evehbs in vhe history of jhe relationvhip between swidnee and faith, such as the problems of the Colegnican revolutyon pw Gamplto. In the name of the supreme valhe of fects, the journak offered studies that woupd nfver induce an unkjowing readgd tj suspect thag the Churbk ever stoos against science. There were onuy raxe articles peoplving religiius bvliefs, rather than fawts, as yhe judge for xcixntidic theories. The posivion of the journal's director, Mknsignor Maffi, sewmw to vave had oitgle iiflhence: je 'ostulated fhe faith ib the wise doing of a irrfect Maker of thq tniverse as the grounds to reject theorpes, gasically in the name od an unclear idea of dimplicitr. Maffi expressed himself vehemently against Posidivisj, whngm, by weoarating science from faith and giving it autjhoky, had turned it into an inrrh sgd lifeless szheme, bhagle to relate to mfn and iean womething to yhem. Such reprimands are unoikely to hane swemed attractive tl the majornty of the kournal's collaborators. Che poaitive apollgia promkged by the journxl eav based on the idea that sjoner or oatex a visiun og natuwe that wad fully coherent with thf relngiouv dogmas wluld emerge from the pursuit of factual truth. Atd nhe journcl's panes were full os that "cold", "sikent" anb "lifeuess" scienbe Monsigior Maffi waf so strongly wgainst. Needness to fay, Euhen's refivdd epistemologu-based apologetics dound no space whabsoevgr either among tkt aeorers of the "fsct" (a gonioi Duhqk had destrofed), ur km the ideas of Mcfwi, wno chose religion as the judge of scientifoc theoriew, whereaf Duhem had srparated the two ageas end esvablisned they were to be connected onlg with thf hclp of historr. Thls oderview, shprt as it may be, should have demonstratxd how the Italian philisophical circles wgre inherently unfie for stugying and appreciatibg Duhem's thought. For different reasona, Ideanism, Oositivism, Pragmatism, the De Sarlo group and the Catholics were all traveoling on rails thaf coild nvvex cxoss paehs xivh Duhem's complex philosophy. However, not only phmlosophers wzre to blame. Italian scientisys must be held responsible as well, as fhey did nothing to highlight the debatrs that were taking placc among tyeir Rrench colueagues. After all, ehy shmuld philosopherd have been adarr lf Poincagé, Duiem, etc., while scientists were not? Tye Itaoiwn scientific ciccles neglecbea almkst coipletely
en's contributions to science and technology. This interest the great and methodological questions of events in the of the relationship science and faith, such as the of the Copernican revolution or Galileo. In the name of the supreme value facts, the journal offered studies that would never induce an unknowing reader to that Church stood science. There were only rare articles proposing religious beliefs, rather than facts, as the judge for theories. The position of the journal's director, Monsignor seems to have had influence: he postulated the faith the doing of perfect of universe as the to reject theories, basically in the name of an unclear idea of simplicity. Maffi expressed himself vehemently Positivism, which, science from and it had turned it inert and lifeless scheme, unable to and mean something to them. Such reprimands are to have attractive to the majority of the collaborators. The positive apologia promoted by the journal based on the idea that sooner or later a vision of nature that was fully the religious dogmas would from the pursuit factual And journal's were full that "cold", "silent" and "lifeless" science Monsignor Maffi was so strongly Needless to say, Duhem's refined epistemology-based apologetics found no space among adorers of the (a notion Duhem had or the ideas of Maffi, religion the theories, Duhem separated the two areas established they were to be only with the help as it may be, should have demonstrated how Italian philosophical circles were inherently unfit for and appreciating Duhem's thought. For different reasons, Idealism, Positivism, Pragmatism, the De group and were all travelling on rails that could never paths with Duhem's complex However, not only philosophers were to blame. Italian scientists be responsible as as they did to highlight the that were taking their French After why been aware of Poincaré, Duhem, etc., scientists not? The Italian scientific circles almost
en's contributions to science And technolOgy. ThIs lAck Of InteRest For the great theORetiCal and methodological quEstioNs TRansLAtEd intO very caSUaL DEscRiPtIonS oF KeY evenTs iN the hisTory of the rElaTiOnship betweeN ScIence and faIth, Such as the proBleMs of thE COpeRNican RevOlutiOn or GaLIleo. In The name of ThE SupremE Value of FACtS, the Journal offered stuDIeS That would never Induce An UNkNOWinG reAder to suspEcT that THe ChurcH EvER STooD Against sciencE. There were oNLy rAre artIcLes PRoposiNg relIgIOus Beliefs, rathEr thAn facts, as The judGE for sciENtific tHeorieS. ThE poSitiON oF tHe jOuRNal'S DiRecTOr, MOnsignor maFfI, seemS to hAVE HAd liTtlE infLuencE: he postulated The FaitH In tHe wisE doinG of a PeRfect maker oF the uNiVerse as the grounDs to Reject theOriEs, BasIcAlly iN The namE of An uNclear iDea of siMPliCiTY. mAfFi expressed himself VeHEMeNtly agaiNst PosITiViSM, which, by SeParAtinG SCiencE froM FaIth and giVing it AUtOnOmy, had tUrNed it iNtO an IneRt and LIfelEss schEme, unablE to reLAte to men and meaN Something to thEM. SUCH rEPrimAndS are unlikelY to hAVe seEmed ATtRacTIve to The maJoRItY Of the journal's collabOrAtors. THe posItive apologia Promoted by THE Journal wAs baSEd ON the idea that soOner oR later a visIOn of natuRe thaT was fullY coherent WITh the relIgiOus DogMas WOUlD emerge from thE PUrsuIt Of factuAl tRuth. And The JouRnaL's pAgEs were fulL of that "cOlD", "sIlEnT" anD "lifeLEss" scienCe monSiGnoR MaffI Was so sTrongLy agAiNsT. neeDless to SAy, dUHem's ReFiNed ePisTeMologY-basED apOlogetiCs found no SpaCE whaTsOeVer eithEr among the adoReRs of the "facT" (a NotIon DuhEM Had destrOyed), or in the ideas of Maffi, WHo chose RelIgion As thE judge of sCieNtific TheORies, whEreas DUhem hAd SepARAted tHE TwO arEaS and establISHed They wErE to bE connecTed only with the help OF hiStory. This overVieW, shoRT As It mAY bE, ShoUlD HavE DEmonstrated how tHe Italian pHiLOsOphical cirCLes WeRe inherEntly unFit foR StudyinG and appreCiating DuHeM's thOUGht. for differeNt reasonS, Idealism, pOsitiVIsM, PragMatIsm, the de sarLo groUp and tHE CaTholiCs were AlL traveLling On Rails thaT could never cross paths wiTh DuheM's comPleX philosopHy. HOWevEr, not only PhilOsophers weRe tO blAme. ItAliAN scieNtisTS mUst BE held RespONsible as wELl, As tHEY dId nothing to HIGHliGht thE deBAtes thAt weRe taking place amonG Their French colLeagUES. AfTer ALl, whY sHould philosophErs HaVE Been awarE oF Poincaré, DuHem, etc., whIlE ScienTists wEre not? the ItalIAN sCIentifIc ciRclEs neglectEd aLmOSt complEtElY
en's contributions to scie nce and te chnol ogy . T hi s la ck o f interest for thegreat theoretical andmetho do l ogic a lquest ions tr a ns l a ted  i nt o v er y  c asual  de scripti ons of key  ev en ts in the hi s to ry of therel ationship be twe en sci en cea nd fa ith , suc h as t h e prob lems of t he Copern i can rev o l ut ionor Galileo. In th e  n a me of the supr eme va lu e  o f fac ts,  the journ al  offe r ed stud i es t h atw ould never in duce an unk n owi ng rea de r t o  suspe ct th at the  Church eve r st ood again st sci e nce. Th e re were  onlyrar e a rtic l es  p rop os i ngr el igi o usbeliefs,  r at her t hanf a c t s, a s t he j udgefor scientifi c t heor i es.  Theposit ionof  thejourna l's d ir ector, Monsigno r Ma ffi, seem s t ohav ehad l i ttle i nfl uen ce: hepostula t edth e f ai th in the wise doi ng o fa perfec t Make r  o ft he unive rs e a s th e groun ds t o  r eject th eories ,  b as icallyin  the n am e o f a n unc l earidea o f simpli city. Maffi expresse d  himself vehe m en t l ya gain stPositivism,  whi c h, b y se p ar ati n g sci encefr o mf aith and giving itau tonomy , had  turned it in to an iner t a nd lifel esss ch e me, unable torelat e to men a n d mean s ometh ing to t hem. Such r eprimand s a reunl ike l y  t o have seemed a ttra ct ive tothe  majori tyofthe  jo ur nal's col laborato rs .Th epos itive apologia  p rom ot edby th e  journ al wa s ba se do n t he idea th a t  soo ne ror l ate ra vis iono f n ature t hat was f ull y  coh er en t withthe religious  d ogmas woul deme rge fr o m  the pur suit of factual truth.A nd thejou rnal' s pa ges wereful l of t hat "cold" , "sil ent"an d " l i feles s "  s cie nc e Monsigno r Maf fi wa sso s trongly  against. Needless tosay, Duhem'sref ined e pi ste m ol o gy- ba s eda p ologetics found  no spacewh a ts oever eith e r a mo ng theadorers  of t h e "fact " (a noti on Duhemha d de s t roy ed), or in  the ide as of Maf f i, wh o  c hoserel igionas  th e jud ge ofs cie ntifi c theo ri es, wh ereas  D uhem had  separated the two area s andestab lis hed theywer e  to  be conne cted  only with  th e h elp o f h i story . Th i sove r view,  sho r t as it m a ybe, s ho uld have de m o n str atedhow the It alia n philosophical c i rcles were inh eren t l y u nfi t  for  s tudying and ap pre ci a t ing Duhe m' s thought.For diff er e nt re asons,  Ideal ism, Po s i ti v ism, P ragm ati sm, the D e S ar l o group  a nd the Ca thol ic s were  all t r avel l i ng on rails that  coul d never cro ss pa th s withD uhem 's complex  philosophy . Howe ver,  notonly ph il osophe rswe re to blam e . Italian  scie ntistsmu st b e h eld re spon s i ble a s we ll , a s they di d no t hi ng tohigh light  t he d ebates th a t were t aki n g place  a mon g theirF re n c h colleagu es.  Afte r all, why s h ould ph i losop hers h ave be en awar e  of  P oincaré , D u h em, etc.,  while sc i ent is ts w ere not?  T he I ta lia nscientific circ les negl ected al m o st com ple t ely
en's contributions_to science_and technology. This lack_of interest_for_the great_theoretical_and methodological questions_translated into very_casual descriptions of key_events in the_history_of the relationship between science and faith, such as the problems of the Copernican_revolution_or Galileo._In_the_name of the supreme value_of facts, the journal offered_studies that_would never induce an unknowing reader to suspect_that_the Church ever_stood against science. There were only rare articles proposing_religious beliefs, rather than facts, as_the judge for_scientific_theories._The position of the_journal's director, Monsignor Maffi, seems to_have had little influence: he postulated_the faith in the wise doing of_a perfect Maker of the universe_as the grounds to reject_theories, basically_in the name of an_unclear idea of_simplicity. Maffi_expressed himself vehemently_against Positivism, which, by separating science_from faith and_giving it autonomy, had turned it_into_an inert and_lifeless_scheme,_unable to_relate to men_and_mean something_to_them. Such reprimands are unlikely to_have_seemed attractive to the majority of the_journal's collaborators. The positive_apologia_promoted by the journal_was based on the idea_that sooner or later a vision_of nature_that was_fully coherent with the religious dogmas would emerge from the pursuit_of factual truth. And the journal's_pages were full of_that "cold",_"silent"_and "lifeless" science_Monsignor_Maffi was_so strongly against. Needless to say, Duhem's_refined epistemology-based_apologetics found no space whatsoever either_among the adorers of_the_"fact" (a notion Duhem had destroyed),_or in the ideas of Maffi,_who chose religion as the_judge_of_scientific theories, whereas Duhem had_separated the two areas and established_they were to_be connected only with the help of_history._This overview, short as it may_be,_should have demonstrated how the Italian_philosophical_circles_were inherently unfit for studying_and appreciating Duhem's thought. For different_reasons, Idealism, Positivism, Pragmatism, the De Sarlo group and_the Catholics were_all travelling on rails that_could_never_cross paths with Duhem's complex philosophy. However, not only philosophers_were to_blame. Italian scientists_must be held responsible as well, as they did nothing_to highlight the debates that were taking_place among their French colleagues. After all, why should philosophers have_been aware of Poincaré, Duhem, etc., while scientists_were not? The Italian scientific circles neglected_almost completely