Saving Duhem and Galileo: Duhemian Methodology and the Saving of the Phenomena

Collingwood R. G. , Autobiography (Oxford, 1939, 1970), ch. 11 (p. 132 of 1970 edn).

Duhem P. , <for>: Essai sur la notion de théorie physique de Platon à Galilée, reprinted from Annales de philosophie chrétienne, clvi (1908) (reissued Paris, 1982) and cited below, in my translation, as STP followed by the page number. Translated by Dolan E. and Maschler C. as To save the phenomena: An essay on the idea of physical theory from Plato to Galileo (Chicago and London, 1969). Journal cited below as Annales.

Cf. e.g. de Santillana G. , The crime of Galileo (London, 1958), 107–8.

Index librorum prohibitorum (1948 edn).

Cf. the well-known discussions of Agassi J. , Towards an historiography of science (History and theory, Beiheft 2; 'sGravenhage, 1963), and Lakatos I. , “History of science and its rational reconstructions”, Boston studies in the philosophy of science, ed. by Buck R. C. and Cohen R. S. , viii (Dordrecht, 1971), 91–135, reprinted in Lakatos I. , Philosophical papers, ed. by Worrall J. and Zahar E. G. , i (Cambridge, 1978), 102–38.

Duhem P. , La théorie physique: Son objet et sa structure (Bibliothèque de Philosophie Expérimentale; Paris, 1906, reprinted from Revue de philosophie, iv–v (1904–5); 2nd edn, Paris, 1914, reprinted Paris, 1981), cited below in my translation as Théorie physique, part/chapter/section/page of 2nd edn; translated by Wiener P. P. as The aim and structure of physical theory (New York, 1954).

Agassi J. , “Duhem versus Galileo”, The British journal for the philosophy of science, viii (1957), 237–48.

Théorie physique, ii/vii/ii/336–84.

See e.g. Théorie physique , i/ii/i/23–26. Duhem's alleged instrumentalism seems to be presupposed by virtually every criticism of To save the phenomena. Distinguished recent contributions to the extensive literature are Lloyd G. E. R. , “Saving appearances”, Classical quarterly, xxviii (1978), 202–22 (which pays particular attention to Duhem's treatment of Ptolemy and Proclus) and Jardine N. , The birth of history and philosophy of science: Kepler's “A defence of Tycho against Ursus”, with essays on its provenance and significance (Cambridge, 1984) — see especially pp. 2 and 225ff. — which concentrates on the sixteenth century story, filling out Duhem's picture substantially and giving many references to previous literature. Both, however, I claim, need reconsideration in the light of this paper.

See esp. Théorie physique, ii/vi/i–v/278–304.

See esp. Duhem P. , Les théories électriques de J. Clerk Maxwell: Étude historique et critique (Paris, 1902), reprinted from Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, Annales, xxiv–xxv (1900–1). An interesting study of this topic was presented to the Bloomington, Indiana HSS meeting by Ariew Roger and Barker Peter . For a version of this paper, see Philosophy of Science Association, Proceedings, i (1986), 145–56.

Most of the relevant documents were published by Favaro Antonio in his edizione nazionale of Galileo's Opere, and a useful selection was translated by Drake Stillman , Discoveries and opinions of Galileo (Garden City, N.Y., 1957), pt 3, 145–216. Professor Drake was kind enough to comment on this aspect of my paper. As is well known, he holds that Galileo did not believe in the possibility or necessity of demonstration, and at least for Galileo's later writings there seems to be a case to answer. But for the 1615–16 documents, it still seems to me that demonstration was what Galileo had committed himself to.

Galileo , Opere, v, 367–70; Drake , Discoveries, 168–70. Interpretation here is confused by the fact that Galileo offered two theories side by side, the one discussed in the text, and an ‘accommodation’ theory in which Scripture is said to use false natural theories in order to be understood by ordinary people. This second theory seems to me just as dependent on the availability of demonstrations for the natural facts at issue as the other. It is to be noted that the first theory is not a theory of double truth. Nature and Scripture are considered as two independent sources of the same truths; they just need the right interpretation to reveal their mutual agreement. I thank Brooke J. H. Dr for helpful discussions of the issues raised in this note.

STP, 1.

STP, 1–2 and 137–8. Duhem's parallels seem carefully enough drawn to render unnecessary the footnote on page 10 of the Dolan-Maschler translation (ref. 2).

STP, 2. Another precedent is the work of Louvain Duhem's Jesuit friend Thirion Jules (editor of the Revue des questions scientifiques in which much of Duhem's work was published), L'évolution de l'astronomie chez les Grecs (Brussels, [1900]), reprinted from “Pour l'astronomie grec”, Revue des questions scientifiques, xlv (1899), 5–47, 435–75, and xlvi (1899), 110–58.

Mansion P. , Congrès Scientifique International des Catholiques, Compte rendu du deuxième congrès, viii (Paris, 1891), 382–4, and “Note sur le caractère géométrique de l'ancienne astronomie”, Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Mathematik, ix (1899), 277–92.

Grisar H. , Galileistudien, historisch-theologische Untersuchungen über die Urtheile der Römischen Congregationen im Galileiprocess (Regensburg, 1882).

Duhem P. , “Quelques réflexions au sujet des théories de physique”, Revue des questions scientifiques, xxxi (1892), 139–77, p. 146.

Théorie physique, i/iii/ii/60.

STP, 127.

Clavelin M. , “Galilée et le refus de l'équivalence des hypothèses”, Revue d'histoire des sciences, xvii (1964), 305–30.

STP, 6–7.

See e.g. Favaro A. , “Galileo Galilei in una rassegna del pensiero Italiano nel corso del secolo decimosesto”, Archivio di storia della scienza, ii (1921), 137ff., esp. 137–9; Frank P. , Modern science and its philosophy (Cambridge, Mass., 1949), “Introduction, historical background”; Crombie A. C. , Galilée devant les critiques de la postérité (Conférences du Palais de la Découverte, Série D, no. 45; Paris 1957); Wiener P. P. , “Pragmatism”, Dictionary of the history of ideas, iii, 551–70, esp. p. 564; Nye M. J. , “The moral freedom of Man and the determinism of Nature: The Catholic synthesis of science and history in the Revue des questions scientifiques”, The British journal for the history of science, ix (1976), 274–92.

See my “Darwin and Duhem”, History of science, xx (1982), 64–74. For Catholic neo-Scholasticism and Catholic intellectual history of the period, useful general sources are, besides the appropriate articles in the New Catholic encyclopedia: McCool G. A. , Catholic theology in the nineteenth century: The search for a unitary method (New York, 1977); Paul H. W. , The edge of contingency: Catholic reaction to scientific change from Darwin to Duhem (Gainesville, Florida, 1979); Thibault Pierre , Savoir et pouvoir: Philosophie thomiste et politique cléricale au XIX^e siècle (Quebec, 1972).

STP, 136, emphasis mine.

Duhem P. , La science allemande (Paris, 1915).

Théorie physique, i/iv/x/153.

Théorie physique, ii/vi/x/330, emphasis mine.

Théorie physique, ii/vii/iii/384–91.

Duhem P. , Les origines de la statique (Paris, 1905–6), i, 156, reprinted from Revue des questions scientifiques, lvi (1904), 394. On this work and its publication history see my “The genesis of a mediaeval historian: Pierre Duhem and the origins of statics”, Annals of science, xxxiii (1976), 119–29.

See the article (by Geison G. L. ) in Dictionary of scientific biography, x, 354–416.

Pierre-Duhem Hélène , Un savant français: Pierre Duhem (Paris, 1936), 47–48 (account of Joseph Récamier).

In e.g. Pascal B. , Oeuvres complètes, ed. by Lafuma L. (Paris, 1963), 348–55.

Analytica posteriora, II, xix (99b15–100b17).

Popper K. R. , Conjectures and refutations, 2nd edn (London, 1965), ch. 5, 136–65, esp. p. 153.

Pascal B. , Pensées , ed. by Lafuma L. (Paris, 1951, 1962), = Oeuvres complètes, 501–641, no. 423; Pensées, ed. by Sellier P. (Paris, 1976), 359, no. 680.

Since work on this paper began I have had the opportunity to read and review Maiocchi's R. valuable Chimica e filosofia, scienza e epistemologia, storia e religione nell'opera di Pierre Duhem (Milan, 1985), which is largely written from the angle of Duhem's relation to the nineteenth century French instrumentalist tradition, and which has been a considerable help in clarifying particularly this section of this paper.

For an example see Duhem's essay review of The mathematical papers of George Green, ed. by Ferrers N. M. (Paris, 1903), a facsimile reprint of the original edition (Cambridge, 1871), in Bulletin des sciences mathématiques, xxxviii (1903), 237–56.

STP, 140.

STP, 137.

For Proclus see STP , 20–24; for Maimonides STP, 37–40. Lloyd , “Saving appearances”, mounts a detailed criticism of Duhem's alleged misreading particularly of Proclus as a Duhemian instrumentalist, whereas I claim that Duhem was not an instrumentalist and that if he did misread Proclus, it was not instrumentalism that he read into him. I thank Mr J. R. G. Wright for help with Lloyd's paper.

STP, 78.

STP, 18.

Duhem P. , Le système du monde: Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic (10 vols, Paris, 1913–59).

Pierre-Duhem , Savant français (ref. 33), 165–6.

See e.g. Hooykaas R. , Religion and the rise of modern science (Edinburgh, 1972); Chaunu Pierre , La civilisation de l'Europe classique (Paris, 1966).

STP, 32–35.

Picard E. , La vie et l'œuvre de Pierre Duhem (Paris, 1921), 52.

Duhem P. , “Science allemande et vertus allemandes”, Les allemands et la science, ed. by Petit G. and Leudet M. (Paris, 1916), 137–52.

For Blondel's relationship with this journal see Blondel M. , Maurice Blondel, Joannès Wehrlé, correspondance, extraits, annotations by de Lubac Henri S.J. (Paris, 1969), 300–1. The Annales had been founded by Bonnetty Augustin in 1830. See also Blondel M. and Valensin Auguste , Correspondance, ed. by Tresmontant C. (Paris, 1957), i, 223, which puts the matter differently: Laberthonnière has acquired the journal with financial assistance from Blondel. Either way Blondel was heavily involved in it and its policies.

Annales (ref. 2), cli (1905–6), 5–31.

See Eastwood D. M. , The revival of Pascal: A study of his relation to modern French thought (Oxford, 1936).

A useful introduction to the massive literature on Catholic Modernism is Vidler A. R. , A variety of Catholic Modernists (Cambridge, 1970). For further study, the work of Émile Poulat is fundamental. See his Histoire, dogme et critique dans la crise moderniste (Paris and Tournai, 1962; 2nd edn, 1979); Intégrisme et Catholicisme intégrale: Un réseau secret international anti-moderniste, ‘La Sapinière’ (1909–21) (Paris and Tournai, 1969); Catholicisme, démocratie et socialisme: Le mouvement Catholique et Mgr Benigni de la naissance du socialisme à la victoire du fascisme (Paris and Tournai, 1977). For the drafting of Pascendi, see Vidler , Variety, 15–18, and Daly Gabriel , Transcendance and immanence (Oxford, 1980), ch. 9, 199–217, and Appendix I, 232–4.

Annales (ref. 2), clv (1907), 5–9.

Berti Domenico , Copernico e le vicende del sistema copernicano in Italia nella seconda metà del secolo XVI e nella prima del XVII… (Rome, 1876).

See in addition to material cited above (ref. 54), particularly Poulat , Intégrisme (ref. 54); Paul H. W. , The second ralliement: The rapprochement between church and state in France in the twentieth century (Washington, D.C., 1967); Tannenbaum E. R. , The action française: Die hard reactionaries in twentieth century France (New York and London, 1962); Weber Eugen , Action française: Royalism and reaction in twentieth century France (Stanford, Calif., 1962).

Testis ( Blondel M. ), “La semaine sociale de Bordeaux: Controverses sur les méthodes et les doctrines”, Annales (ref. 2), clix (1909–10) and clx (1910). See also other pieces by Blondel and Laberthonnière and replies in these volumes.

Index librorum prohibitorum (1948 edn).

Letters to Duhem now with the Académie des Sciences, Paris. Copies supplied by Miller D. M. Dr (Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of California) who had the originals on loan from Mlle Duhem. Copies of letters to Blondel supplied by the Archives Blondel, Collège Thomas More, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. I have prepared a transcription of both sides of this important correspondence which I am studying with Mr Duncan McGibbon.

Duhem P. , “Physique de croyant”, Annales (ref. 2), cli (1905–6), 44–67 and 133–59, reprinted in Théorie physique, 2nd edn (Paris, 1914), 413–72.