Formation in soccer is among the most important tactical choices for a successful match.Herein, the simulations of 420000 match-plays have been performed varying the formation, the number of opponents that are actively pressing the team, the speed of the opponents in attempting a pass interception. Dribbling has been neglected. The match-play ends either with a successful series of passes from a central back to the line of the strikers or with the opponents that steal the ball. In this work, I demonstrate that 3-4-3 formation, which is among the most employed formations, relates to the highest probability of success.

The scientific community of the XX and XXI centuries is a very large companionship, very fragmented and spread all over the world. Moreover, the status of the scientist, which in most cases is a member of the States’ apparati, is significantly different with respect to the one of the scientists up to the First World War.The concepts of scientific revolution of Thomas Kuhn and scientific anarchy of Paul Feyerabend should be reconsidered in this contest. In particular, the anarchist modus operandi should be shifted from the scientific method, that has become significantly standardized with protocols, to the sociology of the scientific community. A pluralism of the scientific method is possible, but an anarchy in the relationships among scientists emerges as more important. The scientist is in many cases a parrhesiastes, a person that says the truth even when he is going to pay because of that, that defends the developed theory or model, by respecting the protocols established in the scientific community. On the other side, each scientist should be a patient beholder that accepts the more solid, and intersubjectively recognized, theories of other scientists.

A methodological similarity between Thomas Hobbes and Pëtr Kropotkin is the intention to spread a theoretical foundation to everyone, in the sense that they are willing to give to all the people a clear description of the reality and a subsequent political view. To do so, they use a scientific method, deductive (starting from empirical observations) in the case of Hobbes, inductive-deductive in the case of Kropotkin. Kropotkin underlines the educational value of the scientific method.In this work we want to highlight that, although they both start their argumentations from a materialist ontology, Hobbes and Kropotkin conjecture two completely different states of nature. Hobbes describes the state of nature through the two famous metaphors homo homini lupus (citing Plautus) and bellum omnium contra omnes, while Kropotkin introduced the theory of mutual aid. Both the theory of a state of war by Hobbes and the theory of mutual aid by Kropotkin have been revolutionary. Hobbes has been influenced by the scientific revolution initiated by Francis Bacon, one of his mentors, and Galileo Galilei, together with a criticism towards the ancient Greece philosophers, in particular Aristotle. Kropotkin has been influenced by the ground-breaking writings of Charles Darwin together with a very fruitful Russian scientific environment.We want to stress here that the disenchanted view of the human nature in Hobbes, a state of war due to the fact that everyone has rights on everything, helps him to legitimate sovereignty, while the positive view of human nature in Kropotkin, a spontaneous mutual aid among people in a community, helps him to legitimate anarchy. Therefore, the fascinating scientific methods of the two materialists Hobbes and Kropotkin to structure a solid political theory cannot neglect different views on human nature due to their historical contexts.

This review underscores the critical significance of incorporating network perspectives in epidemiology. Classic compartmental models (CM) employed to describe epidemic spreading often fail to capture the intricacies of real disease dynamics. Rooted in the mean-field assumption, CM models oversimplify by assuming that every individual has the potential to "infect" any other, neglecting the inherent complexity of underlying network structures. Given that social interactions follow a networked pattern with specific links between individuals based on social behaviors, the amalgamation of classic CM and network science in epidemiology becomes essential for a more authentic portrayal of epidemic spreading. This review delves into noteworthy research studies that, from various perspectives, elucidate how the synergy between networks and CM can enhance the accuracy of epidemic descriptions. In conclusion, we explore research prospects aimed at further elevating the integration of networks within the realm of epidemiology, recognizing its pivotal role in refining our understanding of disease dynamics.