Reply: Our Objectives

Reply to Our Critics

Ratte for reading and criticizing our book. Interestingly, their three sets of comments (to which we shall respond in order) reflect three very different standpoints on both vision and the science of vision. 1. Reply to Tim Schroeder Tim Schroeder is a very sympathetic reader indeed. He raises two queries, both of which are well taken and go deep to the heart of our framework. His first questio...

' COMMENTS AND OUR REPLY Reviewer : Tanja

Results: Please insert “Test-retest reliability correlation coefficient obtained was rho= 0.95.” Also “the correlations coefficient versus the five subscales of FAOS ranged from rho= 0.80-0.86.” Reply The rho has been inserted as suggested Background Page 2, Line 1-2: please delete word “now” Reply The text has been changed as suggested Reviewer’s comments Did the OMAS score have been proven fo...

Our Reply to a Climate-Alarmist Newspaper Editorial

On 17 July 2003, Drs. Tim Barnett and Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography had an editorial published in the San Diego Union-Tribune entitled "The Bush Administration Versus Global Warming." We do not normally take this space to reply to such polemics; but as their opinion piece was so riddled with untruths and highly debatable implications, we felt it important to prov...

Rape and Evolution: A Reply to Our Critics

Reply to Martin ( 2015 ) : Why our conclusions hold

We (Heintz and Ruch 2015, An examination of the convergence between the conceptualization and the measurement of humor styles: A study of the construct validity of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 28. 611–633) pointed to a lack of convergence between the conceptualization of humor styles and how they are measured with the HSQ (i. e. the Humor Styles...