Many of our best scientific theories exhibit the common feature that their wide acceptation or use, thus their stability, are paralleled by a persistent and sometimes growing dissatisfaction with their foundations. The most conspicuous case is the 90-years old controversy on the good foundations of the successful quantum. However, quantum theory is not alone. It was also the case, for instance, with Newton’s mechanics and absolute time and space, differential calculus and its foundation, the role of the elusive ether in the propagation of the electromagnetic phenomena, the explanation of the mechanism for the Darwinian natural selection principle, the mechanic foundation of the second law of thermodynamics, and the explanation for Wegener’s tectonic plates. Thinking about this coexistence of stable scientific theories with their uncertain foundations may shed new light on the public image of science and illuminate science’s strengths as derived from their historical constitution and not from some clear cut or axiomatic foundations or even from once desired unified science. These reflections require both historical studies and philosophical investigations thus contributing to filling the contemporary gap between these two fields. This session brings together historical case analysis and philosophical reflections about the coexistence, not always peaceful, between successful scientific theories and their disputed foundations. (*) This metaphor was used by Franck Laloë in his book “Do we really understand quantum mechanics?”
