Martensite Crystallography - the apparent controversy between the infinitesimal deformation approach and the phenomenological theory of martensitic transformations

The aim of this article is to demonstrate that the apparent controversy between the infinitesimal deformation (ID) approach and the phenomenological theory of martensitic transformations (PTMTs) in predicting the crystallographic characteristics of a martensitic transformation is entirely based on unjustified approximations associated with the way in which the ID calculations are performed. When applied correctly, the ID approach is shown to be absolutely identical to the PTMT. Nevertheless, there may be some advantages in using the ID approach. In particular, it is somewhat simpler than the PTMT; it is based on a physical concept that is easier to understand and, most important, it may provide a tool for investigating some of the features of martensitic transformations that have eluded explanation via the PTMT.

Single- vs. multiple-set resistance training: Recent developments in the controversy

Galvao, D.A., and D.R. Taaffe. Single- vs. multiple-set resistance training: recent developments in the controversy. J. Strength Cond. Res. 18(3):660-667. 2004.-The number of sets in a resistance training program remains a major point of discussion and controversy. Studies prior to 1998 demonstrated inconsistent findings between single-set and multiple-set programs; however, recent evidence suggests that multiple sets promote additional benefits following short- and long-term training. The rationale supporting multiple sets is that the number of sets is part of the exercise volume equation, and the volume of exercise is crucial in producing the stimulus necessary to elicit specific physiological adaptations. The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of recent resistance training studies comparing single and multiple sets. However, it should be noted that studies to date have been conducted in young and middle-aged adults, and it remains to be determined if the additional benefits accrued with multiple-set training also occurs for older adults, especially the frail elderly.

The difference between science and philosophy: The Spinoza-Boyle controversy revisited

This article examines the seventeenth-century debate between the Dutch philosopher Benedict de Spinoza and the British scientist Robert Boyle, with a view to explicating what the twentieth-century French philosopher Gilles Deleuze considers to be the difference between science and philosophy. The two main themes that are usually drawn from the correspondence of Boyle and Spinoza, and used to polarize the exchange, are the different views on scientific methodology and on the nature of matter that are attributed to each correspondent. Commentators have tended to focus on one or the other of these themes in order to champion either Boyle or Spinoza in their assessment of the exchange. This paper draws upon the resources made available by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in their major work What is Philosophy?, in order to offer a more balanced account of the exchange, which in its turn contributes to our understanding of Deleuze and Guattari's conception of the difference between science and philosophy.