So we all choose our own assessment rules?: a comment on Chapin et al

Reply to Frizzell et al.’s comment to our comment

I agree with O’Brien et al.’s comment to our comment of their paper that in order for there to be inertial cavitation, the nuclei must be smaller than resonant size, and therefore less than 2 mm in diameter, much smaller than the mean alveolar diameter. Yet it seems entirely unreasonable to suggest that not a single such small nuclei exist in the immediate vicinity of the alveoli sacs, which ar...

Our computational nature: comment on Barrett et al.

I argue that Barrett et al. (2014) have misinterpreted evolutionary psychologists’ notion of computation. Barrett et al. seemingly presume that the notion of computation deployed by evolutionary psychologists (e.g., Pinker, 1997; Tooby and Cosmides, 2005) is tantamount to positing a physical architecture whose form of computation proceeds via the syntactic-like transformations of spatially disc...

Comment on Yuan Et Al

It has come to our attention that the work of Yuan et al. [1] is being represented as definitive regarding the existence of a particular nonstrange, isoscalar, spin three dibaryon, d * , which we [2] , among others [3, 4, 5, 6, 8] , have proposed exists. We therefore wish to comment on this paper and its relation to ours and those of others. In our work [2] , the d * dibaryon is constructed in ...

Do we own our bodies?

Comment on study by Backman et al

BfArM acknowledges the submission of the manuscript by Backman et al. (2005) concerning the occurrence of breast cancer associated with Mirena use. The manuscript was scheduled for publication in October 2005 and meanwhile has been published (Backman T. et al. Use of the Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and breast cancer. Obstet and Gynecol 2005;106:813-7). Unfortunately, the study ...