Strong claims, feeble evidence: A rejoinder to falk et al. (2010)

Lori Marino, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Randy Malamud, Nathan Nobis, Ronald Broglio

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The criticisms of Falk et al. (2010) are addressed, and the question of whether claims made by Falk et al. (2007) are valid is revisited. This rebuttal contends that Falk et al. (2007) misconstrue Popper's role in philosophy of science and hence do not provide a strong test of their hypothesis. Falk et al. (2010) claim that they never made causal statements about the impact of zoo and aquarium visits in their 2007 study. Yet, this commentary shows that Falk et al. (2007) draw several unsupported, strong causal conclusions. The criticism that primary documents were not used in Marino et al. (2010) is also addressed, as this refutation demonstrates that the analysis was based on all available documents. Finally, this commentary aims, through its criticisms of Falk et al. (2007), to catalyze better-quality research on the effects of zoo and aquarium visits.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)291-293
Number of pages3
JournalSociety and Animals
Volume19
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

zoos
aquariums
criticism
Research
evidence
philosophy of science
testing

Keywords

  • aquarium
  • Association of Zoos and Aquariums
  • attitudes
  • AZA
  • education
  • methodology
  • validity
  • zoo

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

Strong claims, feeble evidence : A rejoinder to falk et al. (2010). / Marino, Lori; Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Malamud, Randy; Nobis, Nathan; Broglio, Ronald.

In: Society and Animals, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2011, p. 291-293.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Marino, Lori ; Lilienfeld, Scott O. ; Malamud, Randy ; Nobis, Nathan ; Broglio, Ronald. / Strong claims, feeble evidence : A rejoinder to falk et al. (2010). In: Society and Animals. 2011 ; Vol. 19, No. 3. pp. 291-293.
@article{659abb43d7954baeacedb631081b68f2,
title = "Strong claims, feeble evidence: A rejoinder to falk et al. (2010)",
abstract = "The criticisms of Falk et al. (2010) are addressed, and the question of whether claims made by Falk et al. (2007) are valid is revisited. This rebuttal contends that Falk et al. (2007) misconstrue Popper's role in philosophy of science and hence do not provide a strong test of their hypothesis. Falk et al. (2010) claim that they never made causal statements about the impact of zoo and aquarium visits in their 2007 study. Yet, this commentary shows that Falk et al. (2007) draw several unsupported, strong causal conclusions. The criticism that primary documents were not used in Marino et al. (2010) is also addressed, as this refutation demonstrates that the analysis was based on all available documents. Finally, this commentary aims, through its criticisms of Falk et al. (2007), to catalyze better-quality research on the effects of zoo and aquarium visits.",
keywords = "aquarium, Association of Zoos and Aquariums, attitudes, AZA, education, methodology, validity, zoo",
author = "Lori Marino and Lilienfeld, {Scott O.} and Randy Malamud and Nathan Nobis and Ronald Broglio",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1163/156853011X578947",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "291--293",
journal = "Society and Animals",
issn = "1063-1119",
publisher = "Brill",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Strong claims, feeble evidence

T2 - A rejoinder to falk et al. (2010)

AU - Marino, Lori

AU - Lilienfeld, Scott O.

AU - Malamud, Randy

AU - Nobis, Nathan

AU - Broglio, Ronald

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - The criticisms of Falk et al. (2010) are addressed, and the question of whether claims made by Falk et al. (2007) are valid is revisited. This rebuttal contends that Falk et al. (2007) misconstrue Popper's role in philosophy of science and hence do not provide a strong test of their hypothesis. Falk et al. (2010) claim that they never made causal statements about the impact of zoo and aquarium visits in their 2007 study. Yet, this commentary shows that Falk et al. (2007) draw several unsupported, strong causal conclusions. The criticism that primary documents were not used in Marino et al. (2010) is also addressed, as this refutation demonstrates that the analysis was based on all available documents. Finally, this commentary aims, through its criticisms of Falk et al. (2007), to catalyze better-quality research on the effects of zoo and aquarium visits.

AB - The criticisms of Falk et al. (2010) are addressed, and the question of whether claims made by Falk et al. (2007) are valid is revisited. This rebuttal contends that Falk et al. (2007) misconstrue Popper's role in philosophy of science and hence do not provide a strong test of their hypothesis. Falk et al. (2010) claim that they never made causal statements about the impact of zoo and aquarium visits in their 2007 study. Yet, this commentary shows that Falk et al. (2007) draw several unsupported, strong causal conclusions. The criticism that primary documents were not used in Marino et al. (2010) is also addressed, as this refutation demonstrates that the analysis was based on all available documents. Finally, this commentary aims, through its criticisms of Falk et al. (2007), to catalyze better-quality research on the effects of zoo and aquarium visits.

KW - aquarium

KW - Association of Zoos and Aquariums

KW - attitudes

KW - AZA

KW - education

KW - methodology

KW - validity

KW - zoo

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79960694902&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79960694902&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1163/156853011X578947

DO - 10.1163/156853011X578947

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79960694902

VL - 19

SP - 291

EP - 293

JO - Society and Animals

JF - Society and Animals

SN - 1063-1119

IS - 3

ER -