๐”– Bobbio Scriptorium
โœฆ   LIBER   โœฆ

From method to critique: a reply to Vonk and van Vliet

โœ Scribed by Wolfgang Wagner


Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
1998
Tongue
English
Weight
114 KB
Volume
28
Category
Article
ISSN
0046-2772

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

โœฆ Synopsis


Vonk & van Vliet (1998) criticise the methods used in the study by Wagner, Elejabarrieta & Lahnsteiner (1995). They conclude that methodological ยฏaws render some ยฎndings of the study invalid. It is shown that those ยฏaws are in fact not present and that the remaining part of the conceptual critique is at least debatable.


๐Ÿ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES


A reply to the note of professors prigog
โœ J.L. Finck ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 1949 ๐Ÿ› Elsevier Science ๐ŸŒ English โš– 190 KB

These two last formulas show how the affinity depends on pressure and temperature and how the affinity can be calculated. We thus see not only that dS is indeed a total differential but also that the conditions making it a total differential lead, in De Donder's method, to interesting new formulas.

Comment on Wagner, Elejabarrieta and Lah
โœ Roos Vonk; Katja P. Van Vliet ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 1998 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 119 KB

Wagner, Elejabarrieta and Lahnsteiner (1995) conclude that people use genderstereotypic attributes and sexual metaphors in describing the sperm and the ovum. The conclusion is criticized on the basis of two arguments: (1) the sperm is, in actuality, more active than the ovum and this difference is r

Reply to correspondence from Sokol
โœ Kamath, Binita M. ;Loomes, Kathleen M. ;Piccoli, David A. ;Emerick, Karan E.M. ; ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2003 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 33 KB
Reply to a message from the editor
โœ Ron Cohen; Andrew R. Blight ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 2011 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 169 KB