Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2001

Abstract

Dans son intervention au colloque Koyré (Paris, 1986), Ernest Coumet a suggéré que le terme «révolution scientifique» ne désigne pas chez Koyré un événement historique, mais un idéaltype, au sens de Max Weber. L'auteur discute d'abord cette thèse de Coumet et expose les arguments que ce dermier apporte pour la soutenir. Dans la deuxième partie de l'article, il critique l'usage de la notion de révolution en histoire des sciences, en s'opposant en particulier à la possibilité de distinguer dans les productions des savants une «pensée scientifique» qui serait influencée par la «pensée philosophique» et dont les bouleversements marqueraient l'avènement d'une révolution.

In the paper Ernest Coumet presented at the conference on Koyré (Paris, 1986), he suggested that the term «scientific revolution» does not denote for Koyré an historical event, but an idealtype, in Weber's sense. First, the author discusses this thesis and presents the arguments Coumet advances to support it. In the second part of his paper, he criticises the use of the notion of revolution in the history of science. In particular, he argues against the distinction between scientific theories and a «scientific thinking», which would be influencedby the «philosophical thinking» and whose changes would produce a revolution.

Comments

This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Revue de Synthèse, volume 122, in 2001 following peer review. This article may not exactly replicate the final published version. The definitive publisher-authenticated version is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02969538.

A free-to-read version of the final article is available here.

This article is in French.

Peer Reviewed

1

Copyright

Springer

Download

Share

COinS