Science and Technology, both in mechanical engineering. Since joining James Madison University, Nagel has helped to develop and teach the six course engineering design sequence which represents the spine of the curriculum for the Department of Engineering. The research and teaching interests of Dr. Nagel tend to revolve around engineering design and engineering design education, and in particular, the design conceptualization phase of the design process. He has performed research with the US Army Chemical Corps, General Motors Research and Development Center, and the US Air Force Academy, and he has received grants from the NSF, the EPA, and General Motors Corporation. Dr. Julie S Linsey, Georgia Institute of TechnologyDr. Julie S. Linsey is an Assistant Professor in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technological. Dr. Linsey received her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering at The University of Texas. Her research area is design cognition including systematic methods and tools for innovative design with a particular focus on concept generation and design-by-analogy. Her research seeks to understand designers' cognitive processes with the goal of creating better tools and approaches to enhance engineering design. She has authored over 100 technical publications including twenty-three journal papers, five book chapters, and she holds two patents. A Review of University Maker Spaces IntroductionAs society continues to progress in a globalized world, the necessity for more and better engineers is increasingly apparent. The engineer of the future needs to be able to harness creativity and innovation in order to stay competitive and relevant in an economy with ever growing needs.1 It is therefore the responsibility of the university to cultivate and grow these skills in their students. It has been seen, though, that the undergraduate curriculum lends itself to diminishing creativity in students.2 As such, there is opportunity for improvement in the undergraduate experience in order to not only alleviate this effect, but to also improve on vital engineering skills that are currently underdeveloped in graduating engineers. According to the creators of the Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate initiative (CDIO), skills beyond strictly technical knowledge such as interpersonal skills and critical thinking are in high demand in industry. 3,4 This is supported by the recently released ASEE Transforming Undergraduate Education in Engineering (TUEE) Phase I report.5 Fostering these skills is, however, no easy feat in the already tightly packed engineering curriculum. The current system has a heavy emphasis on theory and mathematical modeling as opposed to a more practice based curricula, which was the standard engineering education approach until the modern approach gained favor in a shift that occurred between 1935 and 1965.6 As a result of this shift, many engineering students do not spend much of their time engaged in actual design and build processes until late in their degree pr...

Glymour (1970( , 1977( , 1980( ) and Quine (1975 propose two different formal criteria for theoretical equivalence. In this paper we examine the relationships between these criteria.

Logicians and philosophers of science have proposed various formal criteria for theoretical equivalence. In this paper, we examine two such proposals: definitional equivalence and categorical equivalence. In order to show precisely how these two well-known criteria are related to one another, we investigate an intermediate criterion called Morita equivalence. arXiv:1506.04675v1 [math.LO]

In this paper, we examine the relationship between general relativity and the theory of Einstein algebras. We show that according to a formal criterion for theoretical equivalence recently proposed by Halvorson (2012Halvorson ( , 2015 and Weatherall (2015a), the two are equivalent theories.

In this article, I examine whether or not the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian formulations of classical mechanics are equivalent theories. I do so by applying a standard for equivalence that was recently introduced into philosophy of science by Halvorson ([2012], [2012]) and Weatherall ([2016a]). This case study yields three general philosophical payoffs. The first concerns what a theory is, while the second and third concern how we should interpret what our physical theories say about the world. 1Introduction2When Are Two Theories Equivalent?3Preliminaries on Classical Mechanics 3.1Hamiltonian mechanics3.2Lagrangian mechanics4Are Hamiltonian and Lagrangian Mechanics Equivalent Theories? 4.1Tangent bundle versus cotangent bundle4.2Tangent bundle versus symplectic manifold4.3Lagrangian vector field versus Hamiltonian vector field5ConclusionAppendix