Beyond Eyeball Tests: A Methodical Rebuttal to Fillon et al.'s Commentary.
Saved in:
| Title: | Beyond Eyeball Tests: A Methodical Rebuttal to Fillon et al.'s Commentary. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Adam‐Troian, Jais (AUTHOR), Bélanger, Jocelyn (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Aggressive Behavior. Nov2024, Vol. 50 Issue 6, p1-10. 10p. |
| Subjects: | Obsessive-compulsive disorder, Academic discourse, Scholarly communication, Critical analysis, Intention, Evaluation methodology |
| Abstract: | In our original study, "Consumed by Creed" (Adam‐Troian & Bélanger, 2024), we established significant and consistent associations between obsessive‐compulsive disorder symptom severity and radical intentions across four distinct U.S. population samples—Environmentalists, Republicans, Democrats, and Muslims—partially or fully mediated by obsessive passion. Fillon et al. (2024) challenged our findings, alleging methodological errors and an excessive degree of researcher flexibility, which they claim could lead to false‐positive results. In this response, we critically examine Fillon et al.'s commentary, arguing that it exemplifies flawed meta‐scientific critique. We demonstrate that their approach relies on a series of unsupported and misleading claims, including a misinterpretation of the literature, unjustified reliance on visual data inspection, speculative assumptions about religious influences on our findings, and a shifting of the burden of proof. Through rigorous re‐analyses, we reaffirm the robustness of our original results and address the unfounded allegations regarding our methodological practices. We also critique Fillon et al.'s approach, highlighting the necessity of domain‐specific expertize in meta‐scientific evaluations and cautioning against the risks of speculative and defamatory criticism in academic discourse. This exchange underscores the importance of maintaining rigorous standards in both original research and its critique, ensuring that scientific debate remains grounded in evidence rather than conjecture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Aggressive Behavior is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | In our original study, "Consumed by Creed" (Adam‐Troian & Bélanger, 2024), we established significant and consistent associations between obsessive‐compulsive disorder symptom severity and radical intentions across four distinct U.S. population samples—Environmentalists, Republicans, Democrats, and Muslims—partially or fully mediated by obsessive passion. Fillon et al. (2024) challenged our findings, alleging methodological errors and an excessive degree of researcher flexibility, which they claim could lead to false‐positive results. In this response, we critically examine Fillon et al.'s commentary, arguing that it exemplifies flawed meta‐scientific critique. We demonstrate that their approach relies on a series of unsupported and misleading claims, including a misinterpretation of the literature, unjustified reliance on visual data inspection, speculative assumptions about religious influences on our findings, and a shifting of the burden of proof. Through rigorous re‐analyses, we reaffirm the robustness of our original results and address the unfounded allegations regarding our methodological practices. We also critique Fillon et al.'s approach, highlighting the necessity of domain‐specific expertize in meta‐scientific evaluations and cautioning against the risks of speculative and defamatory criticism in academic discourse. This exchange underscores the importance of maintaining rigorous standards in both original research and its critique, ensuring that scientific debate remains grounded in evidence rather than conjecture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0096140X |
| DOI: | 10.1002/ab.70005 |
