Show Us the Evidence: A Reply to Bartleson's Article

Reply (to article within) Wilcock

We thank Wilcock [this issue] and Millar and Rennie [this issue] for their keen interest in our work and for the opportunity to clarify our model framework and results. While they make many valuable suggestions and addendums to our research, many of their objections are based on misinterpretation of our thesis and extension of our findings beyond their intended scope. We hope that our responses...

Show us the model.

patients discussed above had never had out-of-body illusions before, yet direct stimulation of their brain somehow generated experiences quite different from those of everyday life. Is this difference a matter of quality or degree? Many people have had dreams of intense, prolonged falling, even though they have never fallen from such heights before. Perhaps vestibular-somatosensory responses, a...

A statistical test to show negligible trend: Reply

Camp et al. (2008) extend the ideas discussed in Dixon and Pechmann (2005). Our paper used equivalence regions to test for negligible trends (null hypothesis that trends are not negligible). Their paper suggests also using equivalence regions to test an alternative hypothesis of ‘‘ecologically meaningful’’ trends (null hypothesis that trends are negligible but not zero). Camp et al. are appropr...

Taking Article III Seriously: A Reply to Professor Friedman

REPLY Searching for Evidence , Not a War : Reply to Lindquist ,

Lindquist, Siegel, Quigley, and Barrett (2013) critiqued our recent meta-analysis that reported the effects of discrete emotions on outcomes, including cognition, judgment, physiology, behavior, and experience (Lench, Flores, & Bench, 2011). Lindquist et al. offered 2 major criticisms—we address both and consider the nature of emotion and scientific debate. Their 1st criticism, that the meta-an...