 presented here instigate new reflections because they have a critical tone, such as the one written by Marie Gueguen and Stathis Psillos, which call into question the Duhemian distinction between theoretical representation and explanation, essential for a second distinction, this time between physics and metaphysics, and for the establishment of his historical continuity. In the same vein, Michael Liston criticizes Duhem's attempt to use evolutionary standards derived from the history of physics as an expedient for the justification of methodological judgments, since, he argues, such patterns are always easy to find. Other articles are in charge of doing justice to some aspects of Duhemian thought. Paul Needham's contribution seeks to demonstrate the reasonableness of our physicist's position by criticizing the atomism of his time, on which a "general skepticism" would stand, and by not distinguishing physical atomism from chemist, deriving this indistinction from the non-methodological unificationism of Duhem. Víctor Manuel Hernández Márquez makes a thorough analysis of the roles that the finesse and geometry minds play in the Duhemian style, and insists at the same time that the scope of the second is greater than one thinks and, conversely, that the Pascalian influence on the formation of the author's thought is less than some interpreters suspect. In turn, Eduardo Barra and Ricardo Santos argue that Duhem's critical exam of the Newtonian method, in spite of the replications and amendments received, still remains generally valid, and that, after all, Newton and Duhem tried to defend, with different terminologies, the autonomy of physics in the face of metaphysics. A similar spirit stirs up the article by Amélia Oliveira, when she tries to acknowledge contemporaneity, never sufficiently recognized – particularly by Thomas Kuhn –, of the historical methodology defended and practiced by Duhem, that would approach the so called "new historiography of science." More neutral analyzes are made by José Chiap