use the principles from which part and the conclusions to which it tends are different (Hélène Pierre-Duhem 1936, 164-165).6 In addition, in a letter to Joseph Récamier which is quoted partially by Picard, Jordan, Jaki and Martin without identifying the receiver, but that Stoffel has identified by Hélène, the daughter of Duhem7, shows that the latter not only affirms the use of the same human reason in various orders of knowledge, but also takes the same point of departure; in such a way that the so-called radical difference of the procedures is only apparent: To force to reflect on these difficulties, I have come to realize that it can say the same of all sciences, from those that are taken as the most rigorous, physics, mechanics, even the geometry. The fundaments of each of these buildings are made of notions which it claims to understand, despite they will not be defined; of principles that are insured, despite it not having any demonstration. These 5 In the same sense of "hidden agenda", Michel Puech (1996) points out that the history of the sciences of Duhem is a "crypto-theology of Providence". 6 "Il voit une même raison humaine", says Duhem, "user des mêmes moyens essentiels pour parvenir à la vérité; mais en chaque domaine, il voit cette raison adapter l'usage qu'elle fait de ces moyens à l'objet spécial dont elle veut acquérir la connaissance [...]. Il reconnait alors que pour aller aux vérités religieuses, la raison humaine n'emploie pas d'autres moyens que ceux dont elle se sert pour atteindre les autres vérités; mais elle les emploie d'une manière différente parce que les principes dont elle part et les conclusions auxquelles elle tend sont différents" (Hélène PierreDuhem 1936, 164-165). 7 Cf. Stoffel (2001, 79, footnote). Hélène Pierre-Duhem (1936,156), for its part, speaking of his father the Christian points out, in the same sense, that what it is objected to the faith you can also object to the science considered to be the most rigorous and, recalling the charter loss dire