@article {1234666,
	title = {Newtonianism in {L}ocke, {H}ume, and {R}eid, or: how far can one stretch a label?},
	journal = {Enlightenment and Dissent - Special},
	volume = {25},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {62{\textendash}105},
	issn = {0262-7612},
	author = {Ducheyne, Steffen}
}
@incollection {Ducheyne2009,
	title = {Newton{\textquoteright}s Theology and the Flow of Influence},
	booktitle = {Future Perspectives on {N}ewton Scholarship and the {N}ewtonian Legacy},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {35-47},
	publisher = {KVAB, Brussel},
	author = {Ducheyne, Steffen},
	editor = {Ducheyne, Steffen}
}
@article {ducheyne2007noodzakelijkheid,
	title = {Noodzakelijkheid bij {W}illiam {W}hewell: De ontwikkeling Van een concept},
	journal = {Tijdschrift voor Filosofie},
	volume = {70},
	number = {2},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {239{\textendash}265},
	abstract = {<p>The immense oeuvre of William Whewell (1794-1886), a Victorian monument by itself, has to some extent been treated in a stepmotherly fashion by philosophers and historiansof philosophy. This paper attempts to conceptually clarify Whewell{\textquoteright}s notion of necessity, which was a core notion in his philosophical project. The author also sketches in broad lines the historical development of this notion in Whewell{\textquoteright}s thinking and points tothe intertwinement between Whewell{\textquoteright}s philosophy and theology. Whewell{\textquoteright}s philosophical work was deeply based on the history of science and his doctrine of Fundamental Ideas can be interpreted as an attempt to historicize Kant{\textquoteright}s transcendental categories.</p>},
	author = {Ducheyne, Steffen}
}
@article {326144,
	title = {Newton{\textquoteright}s onto-theology versus {D}escartes{\textquoteright}s and {L}eibniz{\textquoteright}s: or on the relevance of unificatory tendencies in the secularization-process},
	journal = {Theology and Science},
	volume = {4},
	number = {1},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {71{\textendash}85},
	issn = {1474-6700},
	author = {Ducheyne, Steffen}
}
@article {ducheyne2005newton,
	title = {Newtons notion and practice of unification},
	journal = {Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A},
	volume = {36},
	number = {1},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {61{\textendash}78},
	abstract = {<p>In this paper I deal with a neglected topic with respect to unification in Newtons Principia. I will clarify Newtons notion (as can be found in Newtons utterances on unification) and practice of unification (its actual occurrence in his scientific work). In order to do so, I will use the recent theories on unification as tools of analysis (Kitcher, Salmon and Schurz). I will argue, after showing that neither Kitchers nor Schurzs account aptly capture Newtons notion and practice of unification, that Salmons later work is a good starting point for analysing this notion and its practice in the Principia. Finally, I will supplement Salmons account in order to answer the question at stake.</p>},
	doi = {10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.12.004},
	author = {Ducheyne, Steffen}
}
@article {321509,
	title = {Newton{\textquoteright}s training in the {A}ristotelian textbook tradition: From effects to causes and back},
	journal = {History of Science},
	volume = {43},
	number = {141},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {217{\textendash}237},
	issn = {0073-2753},
	author = {Ducheyne, Steffen}
}
