Blog Coordinator

Knobe's X-Phi Page

X-Phi Grad Programs

« X-Phi in the Stanford Magazine | Main | Another French X-Phi Book »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

jonathan weinberg

What were the reviewer's concerns in the first place? I can't see why this particular distinction (between item and scale), though a very real distinction, is worth your having to take so much space to articulate in your paper. I just don't see what's going to hang on that.

I wonder if perhaps your referee was instead concerned about the 5-point scale that you used not being about agreeing/disagreeing with a stem statement, but rather with attributing a range of moral evaluations?

Eric Schwitzgebel

I agree with Jonathan. There are some technical types who are just down on Likert scales for abstruse statistical reasons, but more likely there's something about your aims or interpretation or the structure of it that struck the reviewer as problematic. For example, maybe "wrong" and "required" aren't quite opposites, and both different again from "good" and "bad". I could see a certain sort of ethicist, perhaps unjustifiably, getting annoyed at that.

Marcus Arvan

Dear Eric and Jonathan,

Thank you both - I think that is exactly what the reviewer had a problem with. I'd also like to thank Valdi Ingthorsson for some great help with this!


The comments to this entry are closed.

3QD Prize 2012: Wesley Buckwalter