Reply to Smith

Risking Connection Across Difference: Reply to Sokal and Smith

At the time I wrote my original review (Schultz 2010) of the books by Sokal (2008), Boghossian (2006), and Smith (2006), I did not know that I would have the opportunity to reply to their responses to my review. Nevertheless, I value the occasion this offers to correct errors and respond to their commentary. Let me say, first of all, that Alan Sokal is quite correct in pointing out that the cit...

Authors' reply to Smith, Forsyth, Coffey and Prendergast, and Soskolne.

Thank you for these responses. There seems to be some confusion about the extent of The BMJ’s new policy as set out in our recent editorial. The policy applies only to editorials and clinical educational articles designed to guide patient care and does not extend to other types of article published in The BMJ. Moreover it precludes only those authors with a relevant commercial interest—one that...

On the Principle of Uniform Solution: A Reply to Smith

All the standard paradoxes of self-reference, semantic and set-theoretic, satisfy the Inclosure Schema, and are therefore of a kind. The Principle of Uniform Solution (PUS) counsels: same kind of paradox, same kind of solution. Since standard solutions to the set-theoretic paradoxes do nothing to address the semantic paradoxes, and vice versa, this shows that each is inadequate. So I have argue...

Practical Propensity Score Matching: a Reply to Smith and Todd*

Adam Smith and Neo - Plagiarism : A Reply

In describing Adam Smith's acknowledgments as "neo-plagiarism" (Rashid, 1990), was trying to characterize a situation where a scholar either borrows ideas from others but provides no acknowledgment, or had access to fruitful and important ideas yet seems to have ignored them. These can be two quite different issues, and I am indeed guilty of inadequately distinguishing between them. A scholar w...