 historiography of science, which is the scope that interests me. In this sequence, I try to provide some material to help bring Duhem closer to the new historiography of science, from the characterization of historiographic change, as expounded by Kuhn. From the Older to the New Historiography of Science: Duhem's Spot When Kuhn recognizes an ongoing historiographic revolution in SSR  he exhibits the state of change in the historical perspective. Traditionally, the history of science was conceived as the discipline that recorded the successive increments of scientific technique and knowledge while at the same time registering the obstacles that have inhibited their accumulation. Under this conception, according to Kuhn (1996 [1962], 2), the historian had two main tasks: to "determine by what man and at what point in time each contemporary scientific fact, law, and theory was discovered or invented" and to "describe and explain the congeries of error, myth, and superstition that have inhibited the more rapid accumulation of the constituents of the modern science text". This perspective is particularly found in science textbooks, in which discarded theories are considered unscientific14 and what is relevant is the identification of the individual contributions, the place and the date they occurred.15 In the ongoing historiographic revolution – "still in its early stages" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3) – a group of historians have begun to put together other kinds of questions. "Rather than seeking the permanent contributions of an older science to our present vantage, they attempt to display the historical integrity of that science in its own time" (Kuhn 1996 [1962], 3). Kuhn's example is about the study of Galileo's contributions. Some historians no longer sought Galilean contributions in relation to modern science, but sought to understand it in their own context, that is, in "the relationship between his views and those of his group, i.e., his teachers, contemporaries, and immediate successors in the sciences". And, 