Gebhard's Reply to Turner

Reply to Turner and Kerber.

TO THE EDITOR: This letter is a response to the commentary by Drs. Ralph J. Turner and Irwin J. Kerber (7) regarding my review article (8) in Physiological Genomics. I thank Drs. Turner and Kerber for their interest and encouraging remarks on the review article. I applaud their enthusiasm in applying basic research to clinical practice and am pleased that my paper provided some insights into th...

Intensions and Indeterminacy: Reply to Soames, Turner, and Wilson

I am grateful to Scott Soames, Jason Turner, and Mark Wilson for their comments on Constructing the World. Soames andWilson are two of the primary opponents I had in mind in writing the book, and it is useful to see just where our disagreements lie. Both of them raise central issues about the semantic applications of the epistemological framework in the book, especially the use of the scrutabil...

The Ethical and Aesthetic Defense of Animal Analogs: A Reply to Turner

Susan M. Turner (2005) has argued that the use of animal analogs ought to be considered categorically unethical on deontological, or rights-grounds, and that some but not all animal analogs are unethical on utilitarian grounds. I claim, on the contrary, that the use of most, if not all animal analogs can be justified from both the utilitarian and animal rights perspectives. Indeed, I believe th...

The Authors’ Reply

The Authors’ Reply