Search results for 'K. Barnett' (try it on Scholar)

4 found
Sort by:
  1. K. Barnett & F. Newell (2008). Synaesthesia is Associated with Enhanced, Self-Rated Visual Imagery. Consciousness and Cognition 17 (3):1032-1039.score: 120.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. K. Barnett, I. KIrk & M. Corballis (2007). Bilateral Disadvantage: Lack of Interhemispheric Cooperation in Schizophrenia. Consciousness and Cognition 16 (2):436-444.score: 120.0
  3. Georg Steinhauser, Wolfram Adlassnig, Jesaka Ahau Risch, Serena Anderlini, Petros Arguriou, Aaron Zolen Armendariz, William Bains, Clark Baker, Martin Barnes, Jonathan Barnett, Michael Baumgartner, Thomas Baumgartner, Charles A. Bendall, Yvonne S. Bender, Max Bichler, Teresa Biermann, Ronaldo Bini, Eduardo Blanco, John Bleau, Anthony Brink, Darin Brown, Christopher Burghuber, Roy Calne, Brian Carter, Cesar Castaño, Peter Celec, Maria Eugenia Celis, Nicky Clarke, David Cockrell, David Collins, Brian Coogan, Jennifer Craig, Cal Crilly, David Crowe, Antonei B. Csoka, Chaza Darwich, Topiciprin del Kebos, Michele DeRinaldi, Bongani Dlamini, Tomasz Drewa, Michael Dwyer, Fabienne Eder, Raúl Ehrichs de Palma, Dean Esmay, Catherine Evans Rött, Christopher Exley, Robin Falkov, Celia Ingrid Farber, William Fearn, Sophie Felsmann, Jarl Flensmark, Andrew K. Fletcher, Michaela Foster, Kostas N. Fountoulakis, Jim Fouratt, Jesus Garcia Blanca, Manuel Garrido Sotelo, Florian Gittler, Georg Gittler & Go (2012). Peer Review Versus Editorial Review and Their Role in Innovative Science. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (5):359-376.score: 120.0
    Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. K. DeRose (2012). Conditionals, Literal Content, and 'DeRose's Thesis': A Reply to Barnett. Mind 121 (482):443-455.score: 15.0
    Against Barnett (2012), I argue that the theory I advance in DeRose 2010 is best construed as one on which ‘"were"ed-up’ future-directed conditionals like ‘If the house were not to be painted, it would soon look quite shabby’ are, in ways important to how they function in deliberation, different in literal content from their ‘straightforward’ counterparts like ‘If the house is not painted, it will soon look quite shabby’. I also defend my way of classifying future-directed conditionals against an (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation