Methodological foundations of systems methodologies

In social systems science generally, and in management science particularly, recent developments in the variety of types of specific problem-solving methodologies (under the rubric of hard and soft systems approaches) have given an impetus to a line of inquiry, as well as debate on the nature of those methodologies. On the one hand, there has been the view that what we are witnessing is a form of Kuhnian crisis. On the other hand, a complementarist view of developments has been argued and a contingency approach proposed. But one thing has been common among the competing views: a belief that the prospects for further advances in the design and application of those methodologies, and in resolving the current controversies, lie in serious attempts to reconsider and clarify the underlying metatheoretical assumptions and concerns. This paper is an attempt to contribute to such an endeavor. A brief exposition of three methodological foundations (namely, empiricism, hermeneutics, and critique) is made, not only with the purpose of highlighting the nature as well as the limits of their epistemological and ethical claims, but also as a basis for illuminating both the nature of contemporary work on systems inquiry, design, and problem solving and the ongoing debate on what constitutes appropriate criteria for choice of specific methodologies.     

Swimming and bipedal bottom-running in the pig-nosed turtle Carettochelys insculpta Ramsay, 1886

The pig-nosed freshwater turtle Carettochelys insculpta Ramsay, 1886 has paddle-shaped foreflippers that resemble those of sea turtles. These turtles exhibit a wide range of swimming capabilities. As well as swimming by the action of synchronized foreflippers alone, they sometimes used alternate hindlimb action at the same time. They could swim by ipsilaterally synchronized action of all four limbs, or by hindlimb action alone (combined with stabilizer/lift function of the foreflippers). The turtles also showed flexibility in bottom-walking. Besides the ipsilaterally synchronized quadrupedal action characteristic of other freshwater turtles, they exhibited a bipedal walking mechanism never previously described. Propelled by alternate action of the hindlimbs, the animals held the head and plastron above the substratum, with the large foreflippers acting to provide anterior lift and stability against roll and yaw. Because both hindlimbs were sometimes off the substratum simultaneously during bipedal locomotion, their duty factors were < 0.5, implying a bipedal run.     

I ain’t afraid of no ghost

This paper criticizes the traditional philosophical account of the quantization of gauge theories and offers an alternative. On the received view, gauge theories resist quantization because they feature distinct mathematical representatives of the same physical state of affairs. This resistance is overcome by a sequence of ad hoc modifications, justified in part by reference to semiclassical electrodynamics. Among other things, these modifications introduce ”ghosts”: particles with unphysical properties which do not appear in asymptotic states and which are said to be purely a notational convenience. I argue that this sequence of modifications is unjustified and inadequate, making it a poor basis for the interpretation of ghosts. I then argue that gauge theories can be quantized by the same method as any other theory. On this account, ghosts are not purely notation: they are coordinates on the classical configuration space of the theory—specifically, on its gauge structure. This interpretation does not fall prey to the standard philosophical arguments against the significance of ghosts, due to Weingard. Weingard’s argumentative strategy, properly applied, in fact tells in favor of ghosts’ physical significance.     

The green June beetle (Cotinis nitida) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae): local variation in the beetle’s major avian predators and in the competition for mates

The green June beetle (Cotinis nitida) was observed in northern Virginia for a second and third flight season. The study yielded some results that were consistent with earlier findings, namely that mate-locating beetles were vulnerable to attack by avian predators and matings occurred primarily early in the flight season. Novel findings included the following: (1) blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata) were the major predators, not common grackles (Quiscalus quiscala), (2) some jays appeared to selectively prey on female beetles, (3) competition for mates among male beetles could be so intense that some males attempted to copulate with already mated (unreceptive) females, and (4) the sex ratio of the beetle population feeding on wild blackberries remained near equality late in the flight season despite the fact that the sex ratio of the population of beetles at the emergence site became highly female-biased over time.     

On glioblastoma and the search for a cure: where do we stand?

Although brain tumours have been documented and recorded since the nineteenth century, 2016 marked 90 years since Percival Bailey and Harvey Cushing coined the term “glioblastoma multiforme”. Since that time, although extensive developments in diagnosis and treatment have been made, relatively little improvement on prognosis has been achieved. The resilience of GBM thus makes treating this tumour one of the biggest challenges currently faced by neuro-oncology. Aggressive and robust development, coupled with difficulties of complete resection, drug delivery and therapeutic resistance to treatment are some of the main issues that this nemesis presents today. Current treatments are far from satisfactory with poor prognosis, and focus on palliative management rather than curative intervention. However, therapeutic research leading to developments in novel treatment stratagems show promise in combating this disease. Here we present a review on GBM, looking at the history and advances which have shaped neurosurgery over the last century that cumulate to the present day management of GBM, while also exploring future perspectives in treatment options that could lead to new treatments on the road to a cure.     

Newton and action at a distance between bodies—A response to Andrew Janiak's “Three concepts of causation in Newton”

This article responds to Professor Andrew Janiak's recent attempt to defend the proposition that Isaac Newton did not believe in action at a distance between bodies (or any other kind of substance) (Janiak, 2013). His argument rests on a distinction between “three concepts of causation in Newton”, which leads him to conclude that although Newton did not believe in action at a distance between bodies, he was able to accept that gravity was a “distant action”. I critically examine Janiak's arguments here, and the historical evidence he brings to bear upon it, and argue that Professor Janiak's latest claims do nothing to undermine the view to which he is opposed, namely, that Newton did believe in the possibility of action at a distance between bodies.