Hypnotic history: a reply to critics.

Hypnosis reconsidered.

Kirsch, Mazzoni, and Montgomery’s (in press) article musters an ardent defense of the hypothesis that hypnotic inductions produce relatively small increases in suggestibility, and that subjective changes and hypnotic phenomena can be produced by imaginative suggestions alone, without the induction of hypnosis. As the authors point out, this argument is consistent with studies conducted in a var...

Book Review: "Loving Literature. A Cultural History"

It is widely acknowledged that emotion is deeply embedded in literary criticism. Even when we aspire to scientific analysis and objectivity, we assume that we share a love of literature. Loving Literature is a deep and fascinating exploration of this important assumption. Literary critics and professors of literature are expected not only to know but also to love their work. In the case of prof...

Rhetoric, Social History, and Contentious Politics: Reply to Critics

Aristotle’s vigorous vindication of rhetoric pairs it with dialectic. Dialectic, for Aristotle, combines logical propositions with induction from rigorous evidence in an effort to prove a case beyond doubt. Rhetoric parallels dialectic, but combines arguments with examples in an effort to persuade. Neither one amounts to science, which for Aristotle requires irrefutable establishment of general...

What is history for? Reply to critics of The Dawn of Analysis

Burgess. After that, I will take up the harsher criticism focused on matters of historical scholarship presented by Proops and Sainsbury. In addition to setting the historical record straight, I will locate the roots of the dispute in a conflict between the history-for-history’s-sake conception implicitly advocated by Proops and Sainsbury and my own philosophically and pedagogically motivated a...

Rape and Evolution: A Reply to Our Critics