 la bizarrerie, par l'allure arbitraire et peu naturelle, par l'invraisemblance des combinaisons qui lui servent à 'construire la machine du monde.'" (Duhem 1987a [1896], 228) Cf. Duhem 1987a [1893b], 82. 13 In the original: "On ne peut faire une bonne physionomie qu'en accordant toutes nos contrariétés et il ne suffit pas de suivre une suite de qualités accordantes sans accorder les contraires. Pour entendre le sens d'un auteur il faut accorder tous les passages contraires." (Pascal 1963, 257) Víctor Manuel Hernández Márquez – Was Pierre Duhem an Esprit de Finesse? 99 character of the physical theory runs parallel to the distinction between physics and metaphysics underpinning the famous thesis on the independence of theoretical physics from metaphysics. In addition, according to Duhem, she or he also forgets that the elimination of the explanatory element is not a matter of methodological normativity, but rather a historical stage in the development of theoretical physics. In my opinion, this is evident when in the early paper on the English School, Duhem describes and confronts the manner in which W. Thomson appeals to the imagination and not to reason when representing the properties of the elements involved in the phenomena in question. These elements are named after objects present in everyday life, and their properties (e.g. fluidity and condensation) behave in the same manner that do normal liquids and air. Generally speaking, "their nature does not need to be defined philosophically. It suffices that their properties fall under senses. The mechanisms they serve to make up are not destined to be grasped by reason; they are destined to be seen by the imagination." (Duhem 1996 [1893], 57)14 For this reason, Duhem points out that the physics of English scientists is the physics of engineers; whereas, on the other hand, the physics of Continental scientists is usually philosophical. To use the productive metaphor of La théorie physique, when we delve into English physics, "we [think] we [are] entering the tranquil and neatly ordered abode of reason, but we find ourselves in a factory." (Duhem 1991 [1954], 71)15 It would be a mistake to claim that Duhem is contradicting himself when he argues that "the English School has thus acceded
la bizarrerie, par l'allure arbitraire et peu naturelle, par l'invraisemblance des combinaisons qui lui servent à' construire la machine du monde.' " (Duhem 1987a [ 1896 ], 228) Cf. Duhem 1987a [ 1893b ], 82. 13 In the original: " On ne peut faire une bonne physionomie qu'en accordant toutes nos contrariétés et il ne suffit pas de suivre une suite de qualités accordantes sans accorder les contraires. Pour entendre le sens d'un auteur il faut accorder tous lupus erythematosus passage contraires. " (Pascal 1963, 257) Víctor Manuel Hernández Márquez – Was Pierre Duhem an Esprit de Finesse? 99 character of the forcible theory run parallel to the distinction between physics and metaphysics underpin the famous thesis on the independence of theoretical purgative from metaphysics. In accession, according to Duhem, she or he besides forgets that the elimination of the explanatory element is not a matter of methodological normativity, but rather a historic stage in the development of theoretical physics. In my opinion, this is evident when in the early composition on the English School, Duhem describes and confronts the manner in which W. Thomson appeals to the resource and not to reason when representing the property of the elements involve in the phenomena in question. These elements are named after objects present in casual life, and their properties (e.g. fluidity and condensation) behave in the same manner that serve normal liquids and air. Generally speaking, " their nature does not need to be defined philosophically. It suffices that their properties fall under senses. The mechanism they serve to make up are not intend to be grasp by reason; they are destined to be seen by the resource. " (Duhem 1996 [ 1893 ], 57)14 For this reason, Duhem point out that the physics of English scientists is the purgative of engineers; whereas, on the other hand, the physics of Continental scientists is usually philosophical. To use the productive metaphor of La théorie physique, when we delve into English physics, " we [ remember ] we [ are ] entering the tranquil and neatly order residence of reason, but we find ourselves in a factory. " (Duhem 1991 [ 1954 ], 71)15 It would be a mistake to claim that Duhem is oppose himself when he argues that " the English School has thus acceded
 la bizarrerie, par l'allure xrbitraire et pgu naturxlle, pad l'invraksemblance des combinaisons euu lui servent à 'construire lx machine du mondw.'" (Duiem 1987a [1896], 228) Cf. Duhem 1987a [1893b], 82. 13 Ik the lrignnel: "On ne peut fsire une bmnne physionomhe qb'en accordant toutes nos contrariétés qt il nr duffit pas de fuivge une suite de qualités accordantes sans accordtr les contraires. Lour entendre le sens d'un wutekr il faut accordeg tous les kzsswtes contrairds." (Pascal 1963, 257) Víctor Manugl Hernández Márquez – Was Pierre Djhem cn Esprit dg Rijgsse? 99 characver of the physical theory runs psrallel to the divtibction between physicv and metaphysics onderpinnitg the famous thesiw in thg indapenawncd or vhekreticwl 'hysics froj metaphysixs. In addition, accotdybg to Duhem, sge or re also forgets that the elimination of tve sxplanatory element is bot a matter of methofological normativity, but rather a historical stage in the devemupmtnb ud hheoretical physics. In my opinion, this is eviqsnu wmen in the early paper on tne Emdlish School, Auhem bssdribes and confronhs the iannee in whicr W. Yhomson appeals to the imagunation and uot to reason when re'resenting tke prokertiex of the elements involred in the phenomfna in qusrtion. These elemdntx dre named after objects prqsent in xverybay life, and their propertied (e.g. nnuidity and condendatiou) behdve in the same manner that do normal liqnmds and air. Ggnesalny speaknng, "thcir nature does not need to bg defined philusophicallj. It suffmces that thqir propertiev fall under venses. Tre mwchabisms tfdy serve to male up are not destibed to be grasped ny rexaon; they are dewtibed to be seen ny ghe ilajinatymn." (Duhem 1996 [1893], 57)14 Xor ghir reasun, Duhem polntr ouy that the physics ox Enflish scientists ix bhe physixs of endineers; wheress, on the other hajd, thx physmcs of Cogtinental scientists is usuallg philosoohigal. To use thq priductive metcphor of La théorie physique, when we delvx into English physics, "qe [think] we [are] entgrikg the tranqnil anq neatly mrdered abode of reawon, but we find omrselves in a factory." (Suhem 1991 [1954], 71)15 It would be a mistake to claim that Duhem is contradicting himself when he qrgues that "the Enflisn Schmoj has trus ecreded
la bizarrerie, par l'allure arbitraire et peu l'invraisemblance combinaisons qui servent à 'construire 1987a 228) Cf. Duhem [1893b], 82. 13 the original: "On ne peut faire bonne physionomie qu'en accordant toutes nos contrariétés et il ne suffit pas de une suite de qualités accordantes sans accorder les contraires. Pour entendre le sens auteur faut tous passages contraires." (Pascal 1963, 257) Víctor Manuel Hernández Márquez – Was Pierre Duhem an Esprit de 99 character of the physical theory runs parallel the distinction between physics metaphysics underpinning the famous thesis the of theoretical from In according to Duhem, or he also forgets that the elimination of the explanatory element is not a matter of methodological but rather stage in development theoretical In my opinion, evident when in the early paper School, Duhem describes and confronts the manner in W. Thomson to the imagination and not to when representing the properties of the elements involved the phenomena in question. These elements are named after objects present in everyday life, and (e.g. fluidity and condensation) in the same that normal and Generally speaking, nature does not need to be defined philosophically. It suffices that properties fall under senses. The mechanisms they serve to make not to be grasped reason; they are destined be by the imagination." (Duhem 57)14 this out the of English scientists is physics of engineers; whereas, on other hand, the physics philosophical. To use the productive metaphor of La physique, when we delve into English physics, [think] we [are] entering the tranquil and neatly ordered abode of reason, we find a factory." (Duhem 1991 [1954], 71)15 It would a mistake to claim Duhem is contradicting himself when he argues that "the School thus acceded
 la bizarrerie, par l'allure arbItraire et pEu natUreLle, PaR l'inVraiSemblance des coMBinaIsons qui lui servent à 'conStruiRe LA macHInE du moNde.'" (DuheM 1987A [1896], 228) CF. dUheM 1987a [1893B], 82. 13 IN thE oRIgInal: "ON ne Peut faiRe une bonne PhySiOnomie qu'en acCOrDant toutes Nos Contrariétés Et iL ne sufFiT paS De suiVre Une suIte de qUAlités AccordantEs SAns accORder les CONtRairEs. Pour entendre le sENs D'Un auteur il faut AccordEr TOuS LEs pAssAges contraIrEs." (PasCAl 1963, 257) VíctoR maNUEL HeRNández Márquez – was Pierre DuHEm aN EspriT dE FiNEsse? 99 chAractEr OF thE physical thEory Runs paralLel to tHE distinCTion betWeen phYsiCs aNd meTApHySicS uNDerPInNinG The Famous thEsIs On the IndePENDEnce Of tHeorEticaL physics from mEtaPhysICs. IN addiTion, aCcorDiNg to DUhem, shE or he AlSo forgets that thE eliMination oF thE eXplAnAtory ELement Is nOt a Matter oF methodOLogIcAL NOrMativity, but rather a HiSTOrIcal stagE in the DEvElOPment of tHeOreTicaL PHysicS. In mY OpInion, thiS is eviDEnT wHen in thE eArly paPeR on The engliSH SchOol, DuhEm descriBes anD Confronts the maNNer in which W. ThOMsON ApPEals To tHe imaginatiOn anD Not tO reaSOn WheN RepreSentiNg THe PRoperties of the elemeNtS involVed in The phenomena iN question. THESE elementS are NAmED after objects pResenT in everydaY Life, and tHeir pRopertieS (e.g. fluidiTY And condeNsaTioN) beHavE IN tHe same manner tHAT do nOrMal liquIds And air. GEneRalLy sPeaKiNg, "their naTure does NoT nEeD tO be DefinED philosoPhIcaLlY. It SuffiCEs that Their PropErTiES faLl under SEnSES. The MeChAnisMs tHeY servE to mAKe uP are not Destined tO be GRaspEd By Reason; tHey are destineD tO be seen by tHe ImaGinatiON." (duhem 1996 [1893], 57)14 For This reason, Duhem points ouT That the PhySics oF EngLish scienTisTs is thE phYSics of EngineErs; whErEas, ON The otHER hAnd, ThE physics of cONtiNentaL sCienTists is Usually philosophicAL. To Use the productIve MetaPHOr Of LA ThÉOriE pHYsiQUE, when we delve intO English phYsICs, "We [think] we [aRE] enTeRing the TranquiL and nEAtly ordEred abode Of reason, bUt We fiND OurSelves in a fActory." (DuHem 1991 [1954], 71)15 It woulD Be a miSTaKe to cLaiM that DUhEm iS contRadictINg hImselF when hE aRgues tHat "thE ENglish ScHool has thus acceded
 la bizarrerie, par l'allu re arbitra ire e t p euna ture lle,  par l'invrais e mbla nce des combinaisons q ui lu is erve n tà 'co nstruir e  l a mac hi ne  du  m o nd e.'"(Du hem 198 7a [1896],  22 8)  Cf. Duhem 1 9 87 a [1893b],  82 . 13 In theori ginal:  " Onn e peu t f aireune bo n ne phy sionomiequ ' en acc o rdant t o u te s no s contrariétés et il ne suffit pasde sui vr e  u n e  su ite  de qualit és  acco r dantess an s a cco r der les contr aires. Pour ent endrele  se n s d'un  aute ur ilfaut accord er t ous les p assage s  contra i res." ( Pascal  19 63,  257 )  V íc tor  M a nue l  H ern á nde z Márque z–Was P ierr e D u hemanEspr it de  Finesse? 99cha ract e r o f the  phys ical  t heory  runsparal le l to the distin ctio n between  ph ys ics  a nd me t aphysi csund erpinni ng thef amo us t h es is on the independ en c e  o f theore ticalp hy si c s from m et aph ysic s .  In a ddit i on , accord ing to Du he m, sheor  he al so  fo rge ts th a t th e elim inationof th e  explanatory e l ement is nota  m a t te r  ofmet hodological  nor m ativ ity, bu t r a thera his to r ic a l stage in the deve lo pmentof th eoretical phy sics. In m y o pinion,this is evident when i n the  early pap e r on the  Engl ish Scho ol, Duhem d escribes  an d c onf ron t s  t he manner inw h ichW.  Thomso n a ppealstothe  im agi na tion andnot to r ea so nwh enrepre s enting t he  pr op ert ies o f  the e lemen ts i nv ol v edin thep he n o mena  i nques tio n.  Thes e el e men ts arenamed aft ero bjec ts  p resentin everyday l if e, and the ir  pr operti e s  (e.g. f luidity and condensatio n ) behav e i n the  sam e mannertha t do n orm a l liqu ids an d air .Gen e r allys p ea kin g,  "their na t u redoesno t ne ed to b e defined philosop h ica lly. It suffi ces  tha t th eir pr o per ti e s f a l l under senses.  The mecha ni s ms  they serv e  to  m ake upare not  dest i ned tobe graspe d by reas on ; th e y  ar e destined  to be s een by th e  imag i na tion. " ( Duhem19 96[1893 ], 57) 1 4 F or th is rea so n, Duh em po in ts out t hat the physics of Engl ish sc ienti sts  is the p hys i csof engine ers;  whereas,onthe  othe r h a nd, t he p h ys ics of Co ntin e ntal scie n ti sts i susually phi l o s oph ical.  To use th e pr oductive metaphor of La théoriephys i q ue,  wh e n we  d elve into Engl ish  p h y sics, "w e[think] we[are] en te r ing t he tra nquiland nea t l yo rdered  abo deof reason , b ut we find  o ur s elvesin a  f actory ." (Du h em 1 9 9 1 [1954], 71)15It wo u l d bea  mi stake  t o claim that  Duhem iscontradicti ng him self  when  he arg ue s that  "t he  English S c hool hasthusacceded 
 la_bizarrerie, par_l'allure arbitraire et peu_naturelle, par_l'invraisemblance_des combinaisons_qui_lui servent à_'construire la machine_du monde.'" (Duhem 1987a_[1896], 228) Cf._Duhem_1987a [1893b], 82. 13 In the original: "On ne peut faire une bonne physionomie_qu'en_accordant toutes_nos_contrariétés_et il ne suffit pas_de suivre une suite de_qualités accordantes_sans accorder les contraires. Pour entendre le sens_d'un_auteur il faut_accorder tous les passages contraires." (Pascal 1963, 257) Víctor_Manuel Hernández Márquez – Was Pierre_Duhem an Esprit_de_Finesse?_99 character of the_physical theory runs parallel to the_distinction between physics and metaphysics underpinning_the famous thesis on the independence of_theoretical physics from metaphysics. In addition,_according to Duhem, she or_he also_forgets that the elimination of_the explanatory element_is not_a matter of_methodological normativity, but rather a historical_stage in the_development of theoretical physics. In my_opinion,_this is evident_when_in_the early_paper on the_English_School, Duhem_describes_and confronts the manner in which_W._Thomson appeals to the imagination and not_to reason when representing_the_properties of the elements_involved in the phenomena in_question. These elements are named after_objects present_in everyday_life, and their properties (e.g. fluidity and condensation) behave in the_same manner that do normal liquids_and air. Generally speaking,_"their nature_does_not need to_be_defined philosophically._It suffices that their properties fall under_senses. The_mechanisms they serve to make up_are not destined to_be_grasped by reason; they are destined_to be seen by the imagination."_(Duhem 1996 [1893], 57)14 For_this_reason,_Duhem points out that the_physics of English scientists is the_physics of engineers;_whereas, on the other hand, the physics_of_Continental scientists is usually philosophical. To_use_the productive metaphor of La théorie_physique,_when_we delve into English physics,_"we [think] we [are] entering the_tranquil and neatly ordered abode of reason, but we_find ourselves in_a factory." (Duhem 1991 [1954],_71)15_It_would be a mistake to claim that Duhem is contradicting_himself when_he argues that_"the English School has thus acceded