137 research outputs found
Pierre Duhemâs philosophy and history of science
LEITE (FĂĄbio Rodrigo) â STOFFEL (Jean-François), Introduction (pp. 3-6). BARRA (Eduardo Salles de O.) â SANTOS (Ricardo Batista dos), Duhemâs analysis of Newtonian method and the logical priority of physics over metaphysics (pp. 7-19). BORDONI (Stefano), The French roots of Duhemâs early historiography and epistemology (pp. 20-35). CHIAPPIN (JosĂ© R. N.) â LARANJEIRAS (CĂĄssio Costa), Duhemâs critical analysis of mechaÂniÂcism and his defense of a formal conception of theoretical phyÂsics (pp. 36-53). GUEGUEN (Marie) â PSILLOS (Stathis), Anti-Âscepticism and epistemic humility in Pierre Duhemâs philosophy of science (pp. 54-72). LISTON (Michael), Duhem : images of science, historical continuity, and the first crisis in physics (pp. 73-84). MAIOCCHI (Roberto), Duhem in pre-war Italian philosÂophy : the reasons of an absence (pp. 85-92). HERNĂNDEZ MĂRQUEZ (VĂctor Manuel), Was Pierre Duhem an «esprit de finesse» ? (pp. 93-107). NEEDHAM (Paul), Was Duhem justified in not distinguishing between physical and chemical atomism ? (pp. 108-111). OLGUIN (Roberto Estrada), «Bon sens» and «noĂ»s» (pp. 112-126). OLIVEIRA (Amelia J.), Duhemâs legacy for the change in the historiography of science : An analysis based on Kuhnâs writings (pp. 127-139). PRĂNCIPE (JoĂŁo), PoincarĂ© and Duhem : Resonances in their first epistemological reflecÂtions (pp. 140-156). MONDRAGON (DamiĂĄn Islas), Book review of «Pierre Duhem : entre fĂsica y metafĂsica» (pp. 157-159). STOFFEL (Jean-François), Book review of P. Duhem : «La thĂ©orie physique : son objet, sa structure» / edit. by S. Roux (pp. 160-162). STOFFEL (Jean-François), Book review of St. Bordoni : «When historiography met epistemology» (pp. 163-165)
De haut en bas et du centre Ă la pĂ©riphĂ©rie, pĂ©rĂ©grinations dans la topographie du gĂ©ocentrisme et de lâhĂ©liocentrisme
Lâ«Histoire de la physique» de Pierre Duhem: contexte dâune publication singuliĂšre et historique de lâusage du terme «rĂ©volution»
Destined to accompany the original French text edition of the English article devoted to the history of physics that Pierre Duhem published in 1911 in the Catholic Encyclopedia, this article proposes, firstly, to contextualize this written work by retracing the history of the various Duhemian notes that appeared in this encyclopedia, by addressing the various references to Duhem contained in the Catholic Encyclopediaâs volumes, and by briefly reiterating the main Duhemian publications in progress at the time this text was written. Secondly, taking advantage of the first appearance within these notes of the word ârevolutionâ being used to denote, on one hand, the groundwork for the basic principles of Aristotelian physics established between 1277 and 1377, and, on the other hand, Keplerâs contribution which put an end to the demands of Platonic circularity, this article also offers a terminological research of the use of this term within Duhemâs work. In doing so, it also provides some insight into the reception of Duhemâs ideas within Catholic circles (namely, an increased appreciation of its qualities), and it increases awareness as to the entirely unexpected saliency of the notion of ârevolutionâ within the ongoing historical work of this author
Pierre Duhem avait-il «quelque thĂ©ologien derriĂšre lui» lors de lâĂ©laboration de son articulation de la physique et de la mĂ©taphysique ? Le cas de Maurice Blondel
S'Ă©tonnant qu'un simple physicien sache traiter des rapports de la physique et de la mĂ©taphysique, Edmond Domet de Vorges s'Ă©tait demandĂ© si Pierre Duhem n'avait pas bĂ©nĂ©ficiĂ© de l'aide de quelque thĂ©ologien dans l'Ă©laboration de son articulation de ces deux disciÂplines. Faisant suite Ă cette question trĂšs pertiÂnente, cet article liste d'abord les intellectuels catholiques qui Ă©taient en relation avec Duhem avant la publication, en 1893, de son article Physique et mĂ©taphysique et qui auraient effecÂtivement pu l'aider Ă concevoir une telle articulation. Se conÂsacrant ensuite spĂ©cifiquement Ă l'un d'entre eux, Ă savoir Maurice Blondel, il Ă©tudie les similitudes et divergences existant entre les pensĂ©es du physicien bordelais et du philosophe d'Aix pour conclure que Blondel ne peut pas ĂȘtre celui qui aurait inspirĂ© Duhem. Ă l'appui de cette conclusion, il fait notamment Ă©tat d'une lettre inĂ©dite adressĂ©e par Duhem Ă Ambroise GarÂdeil et dans laquelle celui-ci porte un jugement sĂ©vĂšre Ă l'enÂdroit de son «pauvre ami» Blondel. âââ One might be surprised to find that a simple physician could be able explain with clarity the subtle relationship between physics and metaphysics. It is with this question in mind that Edmond Domet de Vorges asked himself if it might not have been with the aid of theologians that Pierre Duhem was able to find and express his subtle articulation between the two disciplines. Following in the footsteps of this pertinent question, this article begins by listing the catholic intellectuals who were acquainÂtances of Pierre Duhem before the publication in 1893 of âPhysique et mĂ©taphysiqueâ, who may have been able to help him arrive at the relationship between the two sciences expressed in his publication. This line of questioning is followed by a specific study of one of these men, namely Maurice Blondel. The similarities and differences in the opinions of the physician from Bordeaux and the philosopher from Aix are explored with the resulting conclusion that Blondel could not have been he who inspired Duhem. This conclusion can be confirmed by a previously unpublished letter from Duhem to Ambroise Gardeil which contains a very severe judgement with regards to his âpoor friendâ Blondel
Pierre-Noël Mayaud, La condamnation des livres coperniciens et sa révocation à la lumiÚre de documents inédits des Congrégations de l'Index et de l'Inquisition
Origine et constitution dâun mythe historiographique: lâinterprĂ©tation traditionnelle de la rĂ©volution copernicienne. Sa phase de structuration (1835-1925)
Selon lâinterprĂ©tation traditionnelle, la rĂ©volution copernicienne, en arrachant lâhomme de sa position centrale dans le cosmos, lui a infligĂ© une profonde vexation. Si elle dit bien notre dĂ©sarroi contemporain face Ă un univers devenu infini, cette interÂprĂ©Âtation ne reflĂšte pas suffisamment la complexitĂ© historique du passage du gĂ©ocentrisme Ă lâhĂ©liocentrisme. Aussi convient-il de la remettre en question. Mais pour ce faire, il faut dâabord bien la connaĂźtre. Aussi cet article Ă©tudie-t-il la phase de structuÂration de cette interprĂ©tation (1835-1925), dans le contexte du positivisme, du darwinisme, du marxisme et enfin du freudisme. âââ SegĂșn la interpretaciĂłn tradicional, la revoluciĂłn copernicana, al sacar al hombre de su ubicaciĂłn central en el cosmos, le propinĂł una profunda incomodidad. Esta interpretaciĂłn corresÂponde a nuestra desazĂłn actual provocada por un universo infinito pero desconoce la complejidad histĂłrica implĂcita en el trĂĄnsito desde el geocentrismo al heliocentrismo. Por ello es necesario volver a plantear el problema, y para hacerlo hay que abordar correctamente el tema. De ahĂ que el presente artĂculo estudie el perĂodo de estructuraciĂłn de esta interpretaciĂłn (1835-1925) en los contextos del positivismo, del darwinismo, del marxismo y finalmente del freudismo
- âŠ