 issues: we find explicit designs of unification, and explicit methodological remarks, as well as explicit questioning of the foundations of physics." In my opinion, however, Bordoni is not appropriately consistent when, immediately following the above quote, he argues that "[s]cientists did not entrust philosophers with reflections on aims and methods of science: metatheoretical remarks began to emerge from inside science, rather than being addressed to science from the outside." There is a simple explanation for this. When a discipline is in the process of its stabilization and professionalization, it is not easy to determine who is inside and who is outside. In the case of physics, as Bordoni himself acknowledges, "Maxwell, Boltzmann, Rankine, Gibbs, Helmholtz [...] may all be described as natural philosophers and physicists," but there are also protagonists whose professional profiles put them on the side of engineers, mathematicians, self-made men (as in the case of Faraday), amateurs, and philosophers. On the other hand, in many cases, methodological discussions are aimed at literate audiences, at young students (as was the case with most of the essays collected in La science allemande), but also at New Apollonians (like Abel Rey) and New Dionysians (like Bergson and Le Roy). In my opinion, Duhem resorts to Pascal's distinction, because – besides his undeniable admiration – it is present in the collective imaginary of the French people when it was not unusual to resort to it as a rhetorical and stylistic device, as can be seen in the profiles of the characters developed by Saint-Simon (cf. van Elden 1975). Therefore, my reading does not assume a skepticism toward his sympathy for Pascal, neither would I call into question the claim that Duhem saw himself as an esprit de finesse. It does not follow from this, however, that he can be regarded as a disciple of Pascal's, as his daughter Hélène claimed (1936, 229), or that there is a strong Pascalian influence on Duhem's main theses on theoretical physics. For example, Stoffel (2007, 287) lists three themes "ponctuelles et textuellement attestées" that, regardless of how much we stretch them, do not justify talk of a decisive influence, since the very fact of referring to related themes, and not to ideas and theories, suggests, in principle, a weak connection. Moreover, in each
issues: we find explicit designs of union, and denotative methodological remarks, as well as denotative questioning of the foundations of purgative. " In my opinion, however, Bordoni is not appropriately consistent when, immediately surveil the above quote, he argues that " [ s]cientists did not entrust philosopher with reflections on aims and method acting of science: metatheoretical remarks begin to emerge from inside science, rather than being addressed to science from the outside. " There is a elementary explanation for this. When a discipline is in the process of its stabilization and professionalization, it is not easy to determine who is inside and who is away. In the case of physics, as Bordoni himself acknowledges, " Maxwell, Boltzmann, Rankine, Gibbs, Helmholtz [... ] may all be described as lifelike philosophers and physicist, " but there are also protagonists whose professional profiles invest them on the side of engineers, mathematicians, self - made men (as in the shell of Faraday), amateurs, and philosophers. On the other hand, in many cases, methodological discussions are aimed at literate audiences, at young students (as was the event with most of the essays collected in La skill allemande), but besides at New Apollonians (like Abel Rey) and New Dionysians (like Bergson and Le Roy). In my opinion, Duhem resorts to Pascal's distinction, because – besides his undeniable admiration – it is present in the corporate imaginary of the French citizenry when it was not unusual to resort to it as a rhetorical and stylistic device, as can be see in the profiles of the characters developed by Saint - Simon (cf. van Elden 1975). Therefore, my reading does not simulate a skepticism toward his sympathy for Pascal, neither would I call into question the claim that Duhem see himself as an esprit de finesse. It does not pursue from this, however, that he can be regarded as a disciple of Pascal's, as his daughter Hélène claimed (1936, 229), or that there is a strong Pascalian influence on Duhem's main thesis on theoretical physics. For example, Stoffel (2007, 287) lists three theme " ponctuelles et textuellement attestées " that, regardless of how much we stretch them, do not justify talk of a decisive influence, since the identical fact of referring to related themes, and not to ideas and theories, suggests, in rationale, a weak connection. Moreover, in each
 isdues: we find explicit derigns of unificcrion, aid expljcit metfodological remarks, as well es ezplicut questioning of the woundatiojs of phtsicw." In my opiijon, howcrer, Bkvdoni ms not appropristely conshstent when, imkeaictely following the above quote, he awgues tnah "[s]cientists dyd npe enfguwt philosophers with reflectikns on eims and methodx of science: metatheoreticwl rfmarks began to emfrge from ibsidq science, ratfer than btiug addresses to science from the outside." Tfere ns a simple ezplwtation for vhis. Wren a discipline is hn the lrocess of its stebiluzation and professioialization, it is not easy to gecermine who is inside abd whm is outrude. In tie dase ov piysics, as Bkrdoni himswlf acknowledges, "Macwqol, Boltzmann, Dankinq, Dibbs, Helmholtz [...] may all be described av nztural philosophers and physicists," but there are also protagonists whose professional profiles put thek on vhd snee of wnhineers, mathematicians, self-made men (as in the daxe of Faraday), amcteurs, and philoxoohrts. On the othet hand, nh jany cases, methodopogical discyssions awe aomed at literate audiences, qt young stubenrs (as was the case with most uf tne esxays collected in La scnence zllemande), bkt also af New Apollonians (lile Abel Rey) and New Dionysiags (like Bxrgsou and Le Roy). In my opinion, Dkhem vasorts to Pascal's fistiuctiot, because – besides his undeniable admiratmpn – it is prgsett pn the cojlectlve imaginary os the French pgople wheu it wxs not unuaual to resort to yt as a rhetoslcal and stynistic dqvicw, as can be reen in the prpfiles of the charaxters developed by Sakht-Simon (cf. van Zueen 1975). Therefore, ky feaqijg djas not assuma a rkeoyiciso toward hiw symlathy for Pascal, neidher would I call into qmestion tye claim that Duhem ssw himself as an edprit de finexse. It does not follow from this, gowever, tjat he can be rqgareed as a diseiple of Pascal's, as his daughter Hélène cleimed (1936, 229), or that there iw a strong Pascaliau lnfluence on Duhei's main tveses on theoretical physics. For examkle, Stoffel (2007, 287) lists thrse thekes "plnctuelles et textuellement attestées" that, regardless of how much we stretxh them, do not jusfify talk oy a decisyve mnhluence, since the very fact of referring to relaved themes, aud not to ideas and theories, xuegests, in privciple, a weak connection. Moreovet, in each
issues: we find explicit designs of unification, methodological as well explicit questioning of my however, Bordoni is appropriately consistent when, following the above quote, he argues "[s]cientists did not entrust philosophers with reflections on aims and methods of science: remarks began to emerge from inside science, rather than being addressed to science the There a explanation for this. When a discipline is in the process of its stabilization and professionalization, it not easy to determine who is inside and is outside. In the of physics, as Bordoni himself "Maxwell, Rankine, Gibbs, [...] all described as natural and physicists," but there are also protagonists whose professional profiles put them on the side of engineers, self-made men the case Faraday), and On the other many cases, methodological discussions are aimed at young students (as was the case with of the collected in La science allemande), but at New Apollonians (like Abel Rey) and New (like Bergson and Le Roy). In my opinion, Duhem resorts to Pascal's distinction, because – undeniable admiration – it present in the imaginary the people it was unusual to resort to it as a rhetorical and stylistic device, can be seen in the profiles of the characters developed (cf. Elden 1975). Therefore, reading does not assume skepticism his sympathy for Pascal, I into that saw as an esprit de It does not follow from however, that he can of Pascal's, as his daughter Hélène claimed (1936, or that there is a strong Pascalian on Duhem's main theses on theoretical physics. For example, Stoffel (2007, 287) three themes textuellement attestées" that, regardless of how much we them, do not justify of a decisive influence, since the very fact of to themes, and to ideas and suggests, in principle, weak connection. Moreover,
 issues: we find explicit desigNs of unificAtion, And ExpLiCit mEthoDological remarKS, as wEll as explicit questioniNg of tHe FOundATiOns of Physics." iN mY OPinIoN, hOweVeR, boRdoni Is nOt approPriately coNsiStEnt when, immedIAtEly followiNg tHe above quote, He aRgues tHaT "[s]cIEntisTs dId not EntrusT PhilosOphers witH rEFlectiONs on aimS ANd MethOds of science: metatHEoREtical remarks bEgan to EmERgE FRom InsIde science, RaTher tHAn being ADdRESSed TO science from tHe outside." ThERe iS a simpLe ExpLAnatioN for tHiS. wheN a disciplinE is iN the proceSs of itS StabiliZAtion anD profeSsiOnaLizaTIoN, iT is NoT EasY To DetERmiNe who is iNsIdE and wHo is OUTSIde. IN thE casE of phYsics, as BordonI hiMselF AckNowleDges, "MAxweLl, boltzMann, RaNkine, giBbs, Helmholtz [...] may All bE describeD as NaTurAl PhiloSOphers And PhySicists," But therE Are AlSO PRoTagonists whose profEsSIOnAl profilEs put tHEm On THe side of EnGinEers, MAThemaTiciANs, Self-made Men (as iN ThE cAse of FaRaDay), amaTeUrs, And PhiloSOpheRs. On thE other haNd, in mANy cases, methodoLOgical discussIOnS ARe AImed At lIterate audiEnceS, At yoUng sTUdEntS (As was The caSe WItH Most of the essays collEcTed in LA scieNce allemande), bUt also at NeW aPOllonianS (likE abEL Rey) and New DionYsianS (like BergsON and Le RoY). In my Opinion, DUhem resorTS To Pascal'S diStiNctIon, BECaUse – besides his UNDeniAbLe admirAtiOn – it is pResEnt In tHe cOlLective imAginary oF tHe frEnCh pEople WHen it was NoT unUsUal To resORt to it As a rhEtorIcAl ANd sTylistiC DeVICe, as CaN bE seeN in ThE profIles OF thE characTers develOpeD By SaInT-SImon (cf. vAn Elden 1975). TherefOrE, my reading DoEs nOt assuME A skepticIsm toward his sympathy for pAscal, neIthEr wouLd I cAll into quEstIon the ClaIM that DUhem saW himsElF as AN EspriT DE fIneSsE. It does not FOLloW from ThIs, hoWever, thAt he can be regarded aS A diSciple of PascaL's, aS his DAUgHteR héLÈne ClAImeD (1936, 229), OR that there is a stRong PascalIaN InFluence on DUHem'S mAin thesEs on theOretiCAl physiCs. For examPle, StoffeL (2007, 287) lIsts THRee Themes "poncTuelles eT textuellEMent aTTeStées" ThaT, regarDlEss Of how Much we STreTch thEm, do noT jUstify Talk oF a Decisive Influence, since the very faCt of reFerriNg tO related tHemES, anD not to ideAs anD theories, sUggEstS, in prIncIPle, a wEak cONnEctIOn. MorEoveR, In each
 issues: we find explicitdesigns of  unif ica tio n,  and  exp licit methodol o gica l remarks, as well asexpli ci t  que s ti oning  of the fo u n dat io ns  of  p h ys ics."  In  my opi nion, howe ver ,Bordoni is n o tappropriat ely  consistentwhe n, imm ed iat e ly fo llo wingthe ab o ve quo te, he ar gu e s that "[s]cie n t is ts d id not entrust ph i lo s ophers with re flecti on s  o n aim s a nd methods  o f sci e nce: me t at h e o ret i cal remarks b egan to eme r gefrom i ns ide scienc e, ra th e r t han being a ddre ssed to s cience from th e  outsid e." Th ere  is  a s i mp le  ex pl a nat i on  fo r  th is. When  a  d iscip line i s in t heproc ess o f its stabili zat iona ndprofe ssion aliz at ion,it isnot e as y to determinewhois inside  an dwho  i s out s ide. I n t hecase of  physic s , a sB o r do ni himself acknowl ed g e s,  "Maxwel l, Bol t zm an n , Rankin e,  Gi bbs, H elmho ltz[ .. .] may a ll bed es cr ibed as  n atural  p hil oso phers andphysic ists," b ut th e re are also pr o tagonists who s ep r of e ssio nal  profiles p ut t h em o n th e  s ide of en ginee rs ,  m a thematicians, self- ma de men  (asin the case o f Faraday) , a mateurs,  and ph i losophers. Onthe o ther hand, in manycases , method ologicald i scussion s a reaim eda t  l iterate audie n c es,at  youngstu dents ( aswas  th e c as e with mo st of th ees sa ys  co llect e d in Lasc ien ce  al leman d e), bu t als o at  N ew Apo llonian s  ( l i ke A be lRey)  an dNew D iony s ian s (like  Bergsonand Le R oy ).  In myopinion, Duhe mresorts to  P asc al's d i s tinction , because – besides his undenia ble  admi rati on – it i s p resent  in the co llecti ve im ag ina r y  of t h e  F ren ch  people wh e n  it  wasno t un usual t o resort to it asa  rh etorical andsty list i c  d evi c e, asca n  be s een in the prof iles of th ec ha racters de v elo pe d by Sa int-Sim on (c f . van E lden 1975 ). Theref or e, m y rea ding doesnot assu me a skep t icism to wardhis  sympa th y f or Pa scal,n eit her w ould I  c all in to qu es tion the  claim that Duhem saw h imself  as a n e sprit defin e sse . It does  not  follow fr omthi s, ho wev e r, th at h e  c anb e reg arde d  as a dis c ip leo f  P ascal's, as h i s d aught erH élèneclai med (1936, 229),o r that there i s as t ron g P a scal ia n influence on  Du he m ' s main t he ses on theo reticalph y sics.  For e xample , Stoff e l  ( 2 007, 2 87)lis ts threethe me s  "ponct ue ll e s et t extu el lement  attes t ées" t hat, regardlessof ho w muchw e s tretc hthem, d o  not  justify t alk of a de cisive  inf luenc e, sinc ethe ve ryfa ct of refe r ring to r elate d theme s,  and  no t to i deas a nd th eori es , s uggests,i n  p r in ci p le,  a w eak c on nect ion. More o ver, ineac h 
 issues:_we find_explicit designs of unification,_and explicit_methodological_remarks, as_well_as explicit questioning_of the foundations_of physics." In my_opinion, however, Bordoni_is_not appropriately consistent when, immediately following the above quote, he argues that "[s]cientists did_not_entrust philosophers_with_reflections_on aims and methods of_science: metatheoretical remarks began to_emerge from_inside science, rather than being addressed to science_from_the outside." There_is a simple explanation for this. When a discipline_is in the process of its_stabilization and professionalization,_it_is_not easy to determine_who is inside and who is_outside. In the case of physics,_as Bordoni himself acknowledges, "Maxwell, Boltzmann, Rankine,_Gibbs, Helmholtz [...] may all be_described as natural philosophers and_physicists," but_there are also protagonists whose_professional profiles put_them on_the side of_engineers, mathematicians, self-made men (as in_the case of_Faraday), amateurs, and philosophers. On the_other_hand, in many_cases,_methodological_discussions are_aimed at literate_audiences,_at young_students_(as was the case with most_of_the essays collected in La science allemande),_but also at New_Apollonians_(like Abel Rey) and_New Dionysians (like Bergson and_Le Roy). In my opinion, Duhem_resorts to_Pascal's distinction,_because – besides his undeniable admiration – it is present in_the collective imaginary of the French_people when it was_not unusual_to_resort to it_as_a rhetorical_and stylistic device, as can be seen_in the_profiles of the characters developed by_Saint-Simon (cf. van Elden_1975)._Therefore, my reading does not assume_a skepticism toward his sympathy for_Pascal, neither would I call_into_question_the claim that Duhem saw_himself as an esprit de finesse._It does not_follow from this, however, that he can_be_regarded as a disciple of Pascal's,_as_his daughter Hélène claimed (1936, 229),_or_that_there is a strong Pascalian_influence on Duhem's main theses on_theoretical physics. For example, Stoffel (2007, 287) lists three_themes "ponctuelles et_textuellement attestées" that, regardless of_how_much_we stretch them, do not justify talk of a decisive_influence, since_the very fact_of referring to related themes, and not to ideas and_theories, suggests, in principle, a weak connection._Moreover, in each