Duhem on Maxwell: A Case-Study in the Interrelations of History of Science and Philosophy of Science

We examine Duhem's critique of Maxwell, especially Duhem's complaints that Maxwell's theory is too bold or not systematic enough, that it is too dependent on models, and that its concepts are not continuous with those of the past. We argue that these complaints are connected by Duhem's historical criterion for the evaluation of physical theories. We briefly compare Duhem's criterion of historical continuity with similar criteria developed by "historicists" like Kuhn and Lakatos. We argue that Duhem's rejection of theoretical pluralism was a primary factor preventing him from recognizing Maxwell's work as an autonomous tradition.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,357
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA
    Wolfgang Pietsch (2012). Hidden Underdetermination: A Case Study in Classical Electrodynamics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26 (2):125-151.
    Similar books and articles
    P. Needham (1998). Duhem's Physicalism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 29 (1):33-62.
    David J. Stump (2007). Pierre Duhem's Virtue Epistemology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 18 (1):149-159.

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index


    Total downloads

    10 ( #120,393 of 1,088,818 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,818 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature

    Start a new thread
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.