TY - JOUR N2 - I give arguments supporting the claim that one of the most prominent methodological results of French conventionalism – rejection of the possibility of a crucial experiment in mature empirical sciences – was formulated simultaneously by Pierre Duhem and Gaston Milhaud in 1894. Thus, I attempt to question the standard approach in philosophy and methodology of science, which attributes the said result exclusively to Duhem. I am building my case of Milhaud’s true contribution to the debate on the rejection of the existence of the experimentum crucis, made in his PhD thesis Essai sur les conditions et les limites de la certitude logique. L1 - http://journals.pan.pl/Content/113268/PDF/P.Filoz.%203-19%209Szlachcic.pdf L2 - http://journals.pan.pl/Content/113268 PY - 2019 IS - No 3 EP - 105 DO - 10.24425/pfns.2019.129762 KW - G. Milhaud KW - P. Duhem KW - Duhem Thesis KW - French conventionalism in the philosophy of science KW - conventionalism KW - philosophy of empirical sciences A1 - Szlachcic, Krzysztof PB - Komitet Nauk Filozoficznych PAN PB - Wydział Filozofii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego VL - Duhem Thesis or Duhem-Milhaud Thesis? DA - 2019.09.27 T1 - Teza Duhema czy teza Duhema-Milhauda? SP - 83 UR - http://journals.pan.pl/dlibra/publication/edition/113268 T2 - Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria ER -