A REPLY TO MR. MOORE

Andrew Moore and colleagues reply to Des Spence.

1Pain Research and Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LE, UK; 2Centre for Pain Research, University of Bath, Bath, UK; 3National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and MRC Centre for Neuromuscular Diseases, London, UK; 4Research Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College Lon...

A Problem in Avicennas View on the Origination of the Soul and a Reply to It

A Reply to Pickering

I felt I should reply to Andy Pickering’s short Response to my long Review of his book; I did not want to leave it uncontested in the literature.1 I will pick up a couple of points from his comments to indicate just what it is that he has failed to grasp about my Review. If these points are understood, then all else falls into place. Though Pickering writes that my critical remarks ‘form a disc...

A Reply to

A reply to

The Lazarus and Bewley [2005, LB05] evaluation of the Archer and Jacobson [2003, AJ03] methodology was designed to examine various sensitivities of a wind power parameterization that was applied globally to estimate 80 m wind power. Their original work has since been updated in a sequence of papers which has, in part, resulted in a reduction of their original power estimates due to some changes...