Jean-François Stoffel

According to our interpretation, Σῴζειν τὰ φαινóμενα : Essai sur la notion de théorie physique pursues two intricately intertwined objectives. Primarily, it aims to establish the historical significance of Duhemian phenomenalism — the accuracy of which had previously been established in La Théorie Physique : son Objet et sa Structure — firstly, by positioning it within a millenary tradition and, secondly, by examining the conse­quences, both positive and negative, that subsequently arose from the various ways of comprehending the idea of physical theory. Secondarily, it proffers a novel interpretation of the rationale behind the Galileo affair, from a point of view which is both philosophical (that of the Duhemian epistemology as it had already been developed in The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory) and historical (that of the lessons resulting from historical considerations in To Save the Phenomena). This article is dedicated to establishing the existence of the first goal by examining, firstly, whether or not it had actually been sought out by Duhem himself, and, secondly, whether or not he believed he had achieved it.

By acknowledging the overwhelming influence exerted by Paul Mansion on Pierre Duhem ever since the former revealed the existence of a phenomenalistic millenary tradition to the latter, especially one that was fully loaded and ready for use in the ongoing epistemological battle, this article examines whether it might be appropriate to extend this influence to include the sphere of apologetics: was Duhem’s discovery of such practices a personal one which he then passed on to his colleague, or did he also receive, in addition to the revelation of the existence of this tradition, an indication of its inferred apologetic practices from him, particularly with respect to the Galileo affair? Even if, due to the lack of a sufficiently precise timeline, it is not always possible to distinguish between a simple coincidence of ideas and an actual, manifest influence, the striking similarities between their interpretations of the Galileo affair suggest that the initial discovery of the phenomenalistic tradition’s existence was indeed accompanied by an indication of certain inferred apologetic practices. This leads us to the conclude, on one hand, that Mansion’s contribution was greater than expected, and, on the other hand, that this contribution, which Mansion himself had already included in an apologetic context, had initially been used by Duhem in an epistemological one before having also been applied, following the example of his muse, to an apologetic context.

LEITE (Fábio Rodrigo) – STOFFEL (Jean-François), Introduction (pp. 3-6). BARRA (Eduardo Salles de O.) – SANTOS (Ricardo Batista dos), Duhem’s analysis of Newtonian method and the logical priority of physics over metaphysics (pp. 7-19). BORDONI (Stefano), The French roots of Duhem’s early historiography and epistemology (pp. 20-35). CHIAPPIN (José R. N.) – LARANJEIRAS (Cássio Costa), Duhem’s critical analysis of mecha­ni­cism and his defense of a formal conception of theoretical phy­sics (pp. 36-53). GUEGUEN (Marie) – PSILLOS (Stathis), Anti-­scepticism and epistemic humility in Pierre Duhem’s 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 philos­ophy : the reasons of an absence (pp. 85-92). HERNÁNDEZ MÁRQUEZ (Víctor 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 «noûs» (pp. 112-126). OLIVEIRA (Amelia J.), Duhem’s legacy for the change in the historiography of science : An analysis based on Kuhn’s writings (pp. 127-139). PRÍNCIPE (João), Poincaré and Duhem : Resonances in their first epistemological reflec­tions (pp. 140-156). MONDRAGON (Damián Islas), Book review of «Pierre Duhem : entre física y metafísica» (pp. 157-159). STOFFEL (Jean-François), Book review of P. Duhem : «La théorie 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).

First recorded in the 14th century, the analogy of spit-roast meat argues that expecting the Sun to rotate around a strictly immobile Earth would be just as ludicrous as trying to move the fire around the roasting meat. On the contrary, it should be the Earth that spins upon itself in order to glean, from all possible angles, all the benefits of the Sun, just as it is the meat’s responsibility to turn on the spit before the motionless fire for it to be perfectly cooked on all sides. Aimed at demonstrating, in geocentricism, the plausibility of the rotation of the Earth and, in heliocentrism, at supporting the physical reality of this terrestrial rotation, nowadays this analogy barely elicits more than an amused, or even condescending, smile. However, its continued long-term existence and its frequency of use — from the 14th to the 19th century, we found it mentioned by no less than 45 different authors — incited us to finally pay attention to it. We then noticed that beyond its explicitly cosmological scope, it raises, in its own way, the question of the purpose of the natural world: had the latter been conceived based upon humankind, then it is normal, despite what this analogy advocates, that the Sun is at the service of something more important than itself by rotating, to the profit of humankind, around the Earth; conversely, since such an infringement of the rule of common sense, as illustrated by this analogy, can neither be justified nor tolerated, it is up to the Earth to move around the Sun. Tracing the vicissitudes of this analogy, over 6 centuries, is thus not only about reconstructing the largely forgotten history of a presently obsolete analogy, but also about discovering the deeper meaning, henceforth incomprehensible, behind it. In describing how this meaning became progressively lost, one can finally pro­vide an understanding of why, in the present day, we are no longer capable of more than an amused smile when happening upon it!

This book presents the first English translation of the original French treatise “La Physique d’Einstein” written by the young Georges Lemaître in 1922, only six years after the publication of Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. It includes an historical introduction and a critical edition of the original treatise in French supplemented by the author’s own later additions and corrections. Monsignor Georges Lemaître can be considered the founder of the “Big Bang Theory” and a visionary architect of modern Cosmology. The scientific community is only beginning to grasp the full extent of the legacy of this towering figure of 20th century physics. Against the best advice of the greatest names of his time, the young Lemaître was convinced, solely through the study of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, that space and time must have had a beginning with a tremendous “Big Bang” from a “quantum primeval atom” resulting in an ever-expanding Universe with a positive cosmological constant. But how did the young Lemaître, essentially on his own, come to grips with the physics of Einstein? A year before his ordination as a diocesan priest, he submitted the audacious treatise, published in this book, that was to earn him Fellowships to study at Cambridge, MIT and Harvard, and launched him on a scientific path of ground-breaking discoveries. Almost a century after Lemaître’s seminal publications of 1927 and 1931, this highly pedagogical treatise is still of timely interest to young minds and remains of great value from a history of science perspective.

In what is quite possibly the most famous passage of the De revolutionibus, Copernicus implies that nobody could ever place this supreme flaming torch that is the Sun in another or better place than that from which it can illuminate everything simultaneously, namely the centre of this extremely beautiful temple that is our world. Considering the fact that he leaves an interrogatory twist to this argument of convenience, and since he makes this statement without any justification as it seems entirely evident to him, certain Copernicans choose to illustrate this by means of an analogy: if indeed the Sun must be positioned thus, it is because the most appropriate place for the torch intended to illuminate the room is at its centre, and not in one of its corners. Despite the heliosophy of the Renaissance having been shared by both geocentrists and Copernicans alike, this "torch" argument does not appear to have achieved much success: rarely adopted by the Copernican camp, it was even contested by some of them; as for the geocentrists, it held no appeal for them whatsoever. Did this argument of convenience therefore not benefit from the self-evidence attributed to it by Copernicus, and from, in his wake, it's continued support by a good many commentators? As is often the case when it comes to the history of thought, the pseudo-obviousness of this argument is merely the fruit of a blatant anachronism: presenting heliocentrism as the cosmological system that finally grants the Sun its worthy centrality by placing it in the centre of the room and not in a corner, is to ignore the fact that this star of the day already enjoyed, in geocentrism, a centrality esteemed to be perfectly in keeping with both its dignity and its inherent illuminative function. Having lost their grasp on this worldview that no longer belonged to them, the Copernicans thus put forward an argument which, for the geocentrists, is worthless. Yet they could have argued the objective superiority of their centrality over that accorded to the Sun by geocentrism: while the latter is only numerical, on a purely planetary scale, and frankly fictitious, the former is thoroughly spatial, of cosmic proportions and, at least on first approximation, very real. In order to produce arguments of convenience that could carry their own weight, the protagonists of the new cosmology would have benefited from getting to know the world vision of their adversaries a little better instead of addressing them from their own point of view; similarly, instead of treating as an obvious fact that which is only evident to one of the two parties present, historians of scientific thought would also be well advised to have a better understanding of the world vision of those who history now considers as the losers!

ROUDAUT (François) & STOFFEL (Jean-François), Avant-propos (pp. 371-372). BLAY (Michel), Soleil de Copernic et soleil de Galilée (pp. 373-389). MEHL (Édouard), Le Soleil au cinquième concile du Latran (1512-1516) : Copernic et la réforme du calendrier julien (pp. 391-408). STOFFEL (Jean-François), «Qui choisirait de poser ce flambeau dans un lieu autre ou meilleur que celui d’où il peut illuminer le tout simultanément ?»: examen de la pertinence d’un argument copernicien de convenance (pp. 409-458). ROUDAUT (François), Le Soleil chez quelques lexicographes et vulgarisateurs (pp. 459-485). CÉARD (Jean), Le Soleil selon les physiciens de la Renaissance (pp. 487-498). MÉNAGER (Daniel), Le soleil dans les fêtes de cour sous les derniers Valois (pp. 499-510). SEIDENGART (Jean), La parenté du Soleil et des étoiles fixes dans la cosmologie de Giordano Bruno (pp. 511-529). ŠPELDA (Daniel), Les soleils et leurs observateurs au XVIIe siècle (pp. 531-577). MELLINGHOFF-BOURGERIE (Viviane), Connivences héliologiques entre théologie et astronomie chez François de Sales et Bérulle: le cas du barnabite Redento Baranzano (pp. 579-610). NEJESCHLEBA (Tomáš), De la métaphysique de la lumière à l’héliocentrisme: la vision du Soleil selon Valérien Magni (pp. 611-627). Les auteurs (pp. 629-630).

BEN ALI (Souad) – STOFFEL (Jean-François), Présentation (pp. 5-6). STOFFEL (Jean-François), Introduction (pp. 7-13). BEN ALI (Souad), Aux origines de l’épistémologie historique: un retour à Pierre Duhem est-il justifiable ? (pp. 15-57). BORDONI (Stefano), De Cournot à Duhem: la naissance d’une tradition critique (pp. 59-93). FORTINO (Mirella), L’épistémologie de Duhem est-elle une ennemie de la rationalité ouverte ? (pp. 95-122). LEITE (Fábio Rodrigo), Quelques notes sur le prétendu réalisme struc­turel attribué à Pierre Duhem (pp. 123-164). ROUMENGOUS (Lucas), La continuité de la physique à la métaphysique: un argument en faveur du néo-thomisme de Pierre Duhem ? (pp. 165-198). SEIDENGART (Jean), Duhem et les limites de son phénoménisme: la théorie physique peut-elle se contenter de sauver les phénomènes ? (pp. 199-219). STOFFEL (Jean-Fran­çois), Pierre Duhem et la revendication d’une tradition phéno­mé­naliste: à propos de son «Essai sur la notion de théorie physique de Platon à Galilée» (pp. 221-268). STOFFEL (Jean-François), L’«Histoire de la physique» de Pierre Duhem: contexte d’une publication singulière et historique de l’usage du terme «révolution» (pp. 271-300). BORDONI (Stefano), L’«Histoire de la physique» de Pierre Duhem: une histoire synthétique et tran­chante (pp. 301-310). DUHEM (Pierre), Histoire de la physique / manuscrit édité par Souad BEN ALI et Jean-François STOFFEL (pp. 311-406). Présentation des auteurs (pp. 407-409). Table des matières (pp. 411-412).

Claude TROISFONTAINES, La métaphysique, fondement des sciences chez Descartes (pp. 11-25). Jean DHOMBRES, La ques­tion du repère chez Descartes et dans la postérité cartésienne : essai sur le concept de banalisation en histoire des sciences (pp. 27-77). Giorgio PIGAFETTA, J. P. de Crousaz : parmi les carté­siens, un enfant douteux (pp. 79-96). Michel BOUGARD, La chi­mie pré­lavoisienne de Nicolas Lemery et le cartésianisme : contra­dictions et influences cachées (pp. 97-119). Edoardo BENVENUTO et Antonella MASTRORILLI, Newton emmêlé dans les tourbillons par Johann Bernoulli (pp. 121-155). Bertrand HESPEL, Les «Prin­cipes de la philosophie» de Descartes et les «Principes de mécanique» de Hertz (pp. 157-185). Dominique LAMBERT, La théorie des nœuds : un héritage cartésien? (pp. 187-204). Hourya SINACEUR, L’inter­prétation en mathémati­ques : de Descartes à Hilbert et Tarski (pp. 205-221). Jean-Michel COUNET, Louis de Broglie : la physique par figures et mouvements (pp. 223-247).

Physicien théoricien, philosophe de la physique et historien des théo­ries physiques, le savant catholique français Pierre Duhem (1861-1916) a profondément marqué la pensée du vingtième siècle. Chacun connaît le Système du monde, dont les dix volu­mes ont contribué à la redécouverte de la science médiévale, et La théorie physique, qui a notamment donné lieu à la célèbre «thèse Duhem-Quine». Si Clio a donc gardé de Duhem le sou­venir d’un grand historien des sciences et d’un philosophe perspicace de la physique, lui-même cependant n’aspirait qu’à être reconnu comme physicien. Son œuvre est en effet traver­sée par un projet scientifique qui consiste à ordonner et à réunir les diverses branches de la physique sous l’égide de la thermo­dynamique dans le cadre d’une théorie représentative et non explicative du réel. C’est ce projet que Duhem a voulu réaliser dans ses publications scientifiques, exposer dans ses écrits philoso­phiques, et finalement cautionner par ses recherches historiques. Cependant l’investissement toujours plus important de Duhem en histoire des sciences et la présence dans son œuvre de con­sidéra­tions apologétiques et d’écrits patriotiques peuvent don­ner à penser qu’il s’est progressivement détourné de ce projet primordial au profit d’autres préoccupations. De même, les tensions qui, à l’inté­rieur de ce projet scientifique, subsistent entre sa volonté unificatrice et sa revendication phénoménaliste peuvent conduire à une relativi­sation de cette dernière, conçue comme une demande contextuelle, passa­gère et finalement peu significative. Sans ignorer ces préoccu­pations historiques, religieuses ou patriotiques, sans négliger ce con­flit d’intérêt entre les deux parties constitutives du projet duhémien, cette étude entend tout d’abord réaffirmer que ce projet scientifique ne sera jamais ni abandonné, ni amputé. Toutefois, dès lors que sont maintenues la permanence, la prio­rité et l’intégralité de ce projet, trois paradoxes surgissent im­médiatement. Si Duhem se voulait avant tout physicien et souhaitait être reconnu comme tel, par quelle extravagance de l’histoire est-il finalement connu pour ses recherches histori­ques et ses travaux philosophiques et non pour ce qui lui tenait le plus à cœur? S’il ne voulait être qu’un illustre physicien, pourquoi s’est-il acharné, au retour du laboratoire, à exhumer de l’oubli les manuscrits et les théories scientifiques des au­teurs médiévaux? Enfin, s’il voulait vraiment établir une physi­que qui soit unifiée, cohérente et parfaite, pourquoi se prive-t-il du réa­lisme et s’embarrasse-t-il du phénoménalisme? Basée sur la corres­pondance inédite de Duhem, cette étude, centrée plus particu­liè­rement sur ce troisième paradoxe, contribue fina­lement à élucider chacun d’eux.

Deux appréciations différentes peuvent être portées quant à l'in­fluence de la cosmologie moderne sur l'héliolâtrie tradition­nelle. Selon la première, la cosmologie moderne a valorisé le Soleil en lui accordant une position cosmologique conforme à son incontestable importance physique, astronomique et sym­bolique. Selon la seconde au contraire, en conduisant au dé­senchantement du monde, elle a mis fin à l'héliolâtrie an­tique. Ces appréciations, apparemment con­tra­dic­toires, contiennent chacune une part de vérité, dans la mesure où la cosmologie moderne se décompose en trois étapes presque simul­tanées, mais aux conséquences bien différentes : 1°) le passage du géocentrisme à l'héliocentrisme, qui opère un renforcement de la symbolique solaire : 2°) la suppression de la bipartition entre monde sublunaire et monde céleste, qui au contraire vient infir­mer la perfec­tion et l'excellence traditionnellement reconnues à l'astre du jour ; et enfin 3°) le passage du monde clos à l'uni­vers infini, qui parachève la désacralisation du Soleil précédem­ment entamée. Cet article est con­sacré à la deuxième de ces trois étapes. Il met notam­ment en évi­dence, d'une part, que le Soleil, maintenant qu'il est connu comme couvert de taches, symbo­lise non plus la divinité, mais l'imperfection inévitable du monde et du genre humain et, d'autre part, que si sa désigna­tion traditionnelle comme étant «l'omnivoyant» reste de mise, c'est dorénavant au sein d'usages comiques et irrévérencieux. –– There are two possible points of view with regards to how modern cosmology has influenced the traditional heliocentric system. The first would say that modern cosmology has given a greater importance to the sun by giving her a place in the universe which is equal to her undeniable physical, astrono­mical and symbolic value. Another possible point of view would be that when the symbolic value of the earth was diminished, the sun suffered the same fate. Both of these two, apparently contradictory, points of view are true in their own way, insofar as modern cosmology can be divided into three stages which although simultaneous, have very different effects. 1) Passing from a geocentric to a heliocentric system strengthened the symbolic value of the sun. 2) However, this movement caused what had been a clear distinction between the sublunary world and the heavens to be lost. This distinction had upheld the excellence of the day star. 3) Finally the world which had been finite and well defined became infinite. The third stage was the final blow in the devaluation of the sun. This article deals with the second of these three stages: that, on the one hand, the sun is covered with marks and can no longer be seen as symbolising divinity but only inevitable imperfection, which reflects the world and mankind itself. On the other hand, if the sun was “all seeing”, this vision is now at best a comic parody, if not strictly irreverent.

Selon l'interprétation traditionnelle de la révolution coperni­cienne, le géocentrisme est un anthropocentrisme et l'héliocen­trisme, un anthro­­popériphérisme. C'est cette double assimila­tion que cet article entend remettre en question. En effet, le géocentrisme peut être appréhendé comme un théocentrisme, un héliocentrisme, un diablo­centrisme et un anthropofinalisme, mais il n'en reste pas moins, indubitablement, un anthropopéri­phérisme. Le seul «anthropocentra­lisme» qui lui appartienne est un anthropoconceptualisme qui, hors de toute perspective valo­risante, n'est qu'une incapacité à se dé­centrer. Quant à l'hélio­centrisme proprement dit, s'il s'oppose à l'anthropofinalisme des Anciens et à ce qu'il croit être leur anthropo­centralisme, il ne dégénère pas pour autant en un anthropo­péri­phérisme, car, d'une part, il est davantage préoccupé par la centration du So­leil que par la décentration de la Terre et, d'autre part, il par­vient même à s'accom­moder de perspectives franchement anthro­pocentriques. ––– According to the traditional interpretation of the Copernican revolution, the old geocentric system was anthropocentric and the new heliocentric system anthropoperipheric. The double assimilation is what this article wants to call into question. Although a geocentric system can be seen to be theocentric, a heliocentric system can be interpreted as being diabolocentric and anthropofinalist, but also undeniably anthropoperipheric. The only way a heliocentric system can be seen as anthropo­centric is as being anthropoconceptualist. Far from honouring man, this demonstrates an incapacity to see things from a point of view other than man's own. Although a heliocentric system is opposed to the ancient anthropofinality and what was seen as anthropocentrality, it is not necessarily anthropoperipheric. This is firstly because the new system was far more preoccupied with the new centrality of the sun than with the new position of the earth, and secondly because the new system managed to incorporate many aspects of anthropocentrality in her new vision.